Florida Social Services Closed Case 0n Parkland Spree Killer Despite “Behavioral Struggles,” Nazi Sympathies and a Plan to Buy A Gun

Spree killer Nikolas Cruz (courtesy latimes.com)

“Florida’s state social services agency investigated Nikolas Cruz’s home life more than a year before police say he killed 17 people at his former high school, closing the inquiry after determining that his ‘final level of risk is low,’ despite learning that the teenager had behavioral struggles and was planning to buy a gun,” nytimes.com reports. The specifics are — or should have been — alarming . . .

The investigation detailed several unnerving behaviors from Cruz, including that he had cut his arms on Snapchat, had a Nazi symbol and a racial epithet on his backpack and intended to purchase a gun for unknown reasons, according to a Florida Department of Children and Families report obtained by The Washington Post.

Ultimately, the investigation was closed in November 2016, just months before Cruz bought the AR-15 assault-style rifle that police say he would later use in the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla.

So, the FBI knew about Nikolas Cruz’s plan to shoot up a high school, Broward County Sheriff’s Department knew Nikolas Cruz was a deeply disturbed and dangerous individual, Marjory Stoneman High School knew Nikolas Cruz was a threat (and expelled him from school) and Florida Social Services knew Nikolas Cruz had Nazi sympathies and wanted to buy a gun.

And yet no one intervened, Nikolas Cruz passed a federal background check to purchase a Smith & Wesson AR15 and 17 innocent people are dead. And gun control advocates want Americans to believe gun laws are to blame for the massacre. I don’t think so. You?



  1. avatar marty says:

    There isn’t a law that isn’t already on the books preventing a criminal or mental patient from a criminal act. All we have to do is enforce existing laws. Any additional laws are simply ‘feel good’ laws which make a politician say he/she did something.

    1. avatar Mark C says:

      Only five states have laws allowing family members, guardians, or police to ask judges to temporarily strip gun rights from people who show warning signs of violence. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/gun-control-republicans-consider-grvo/

      1. avatar Rick the Bear says:

        Mark C.

        ” …five states have laws allowing family members, guardians, or police to ask judges to temporarily strip gun rights…”

        And that’s 5 too many, as far as I’m concerned. Until we can predict the future, we need to wait for people to act (and then react with fury).

        Just my 2¢

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          Great plan, Rick. Seventeen dead and then we act. Sorry, not buying it.

          Active intervention, investigation, interview etc. could have prevented the latest atrocity and would have violated nobody’s rights. Unless the right to commit mass murder is Constitutionally protected.

          Is it?

        2. avatar TruthTellers says:

          I agree with Ralph. When somebody has had the police called on them dozens of times, posts the type of content he did on his social media, self-harm on video, Nazi ideologies, expulsion from school… that’s all concrete evidence that someone is unstable and should be put as a Prohibited Person in the FBI database, if not removed from society and placed in mental health treatment.

        3. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          You guys are throwing in with unconstitutional laws to avoid things like this? Bullshit, you’re speaking antigun.

          Rick had it right, you have to wait for them to act. The only correct thing you other two said is that he shouldn’t have been on the streets. The psycho HAD in fact acted and should have been put away for everybody’s good.

        4. avatar neiowa says:

          The Popo research industry think they can predict who will commit a crime before the individual is even BORN. The same types obvious are fans of abortion. Think of the “savings” by aborting those big brother can profile as likely future criminals.

          What is the % of “Nazi Sympathizer”, gun nuts, those the HighSchool principal dislikes, loner, has thought of suicide, ______that progs don’t like who eventually commit murder (or mass murder)? 100% or -.01%?

        5. avatar Cliff H says:

          There is not and cannot be in a free society a “Department of Pre-Crime.”

          Even this screwed up “kid” apparently did nothing seriously illegal prior to his final rampage. If he had then perhaps (perhaps) something could have been done to stop him, but teen-age boys acting out, talking tough, fighting over girls? Teen-age boys having trouble adjusting to adulthood, arguing with their parents?

          And then there is this bland acceptance by some people here of NICS when we have seen over and over and over that IT DOES NOT WORK. When was the last time one of these massacres happened where the shooter had not gotten weapons after passing a NICS check?

          Now, if you are truly a supporter of the Second Amendment, please show me where in this statement:

          A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

          …do you see ANYTHING that authorizes the government to create lists of people who are not allowed to exercise this natural, civil and CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED right?

          It is that government that the Second Amendment is intended to allow us to protect ourselves from!

          It is not possible to protect everyone at all times from the depredations of criminals or the insane or from tyrants. Isn’t that exactly why so many of us carry every day? It is not possible to determine beforehand which of our neighbors will be the next mass murderer, no matter how we may cringe at their behavior. Remember, every Progressive in America thinks you and I are certifiably insane just because we appreciate firearms and their utility in self defense. Don’t you understand that these same people, given the opportunity, would declare us mentally unfit and make every attempt to not just deny our 2A protected rights, but send SWAT around to collect our guns?

          The Second Amendment has two main functions:

          1. Deterrence – where an unknown but significant portion of the people present MAY be armed and able to resist, criminals, and tyrants, are loathe to reveal themselves, much less commit criminal acts, and

          2. Should such criminals reveal themselves through stupidity, insanity, or hubris an/any/many armed citizens can STOP the crime as soon as possible, on the spot.

          Neither of these functions are foolproof, which is why #2 exists to back up #1, and unfortunately in some situations good people will be hurt or even killed before the incident is contained, but isn’t this preferable to giving over power to the government to decide who and where and how many? Historically this has NEVER gone well.

          So stop with the “Fix NICS” crap already! The National Instant Check System, quite aside from being almost entirely useless in preventing criminals and mass-murderers from obtaining the weapons they want in order to commit their crimes, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and an infringement of the Second Amendment protections.

          There are ways to mitigate insane attacks. Will those ways stop a dedicated group of terrorists? Would they have stopped the Las Vegas attack? Nothing could be 100%. Any defense provided can be defeated by someone willing to study it for weak points, especially if that someone is willing to die to attain his objective. But the one thing they cannot entirely defeat is the random presence of armed resistance once they are inside the target area.

        6. avatar Toni says:

          Spot on Cliff H. you nailed it right there

        7. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

          This kid raised every red flag short of having his book, “School Shootings and Me: This sort of thing is my bag, Baby!” hit #1 on the NYT best sellers list.

          If we’re willing to profile a little to keep terrorists in general out, then I’m willing to profile specific individuals to ferret out the enemies within.

        8. avatar Sprocket says:

          Psychos shouldn’t have guns. As a society we restrict the freedoms of all sorts of degenerates. There is no reason we should apply a different standard to the mentally defective. What’s lacking is a well developed mechanism to decide who is too bat shit insane to be allowed to posses firearms.

          In a perfect world all the agencies Florida would have coordinated their information, the little shitbag would have gotten a day in court to contest his restraining order and 17 people would still be alive.

        9. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Rick the Bear, Eric in Oregon, Cliff H… You’ve got it. Cliff H, excellent post!

          The main defender of one’s self is the individual; not government. Some of the rest of you are just begging for a “light” version of the communist utopia. Unfortunately for yourselves and the rest of us, there is no “light” version. It all ends in tyranny. Stop expecting government to carry your own responsibilities. It can’t and it will end horribly for all.

        10. avatar sian says:

          He had committed criminal acts and the school, local police and FBI didn’t seem interested enough in actually having him arrested.

          That’s the problem here.

        11. avatar DesertDave says:

          Fix the REAL problem, prescribing psych drugs that have suicide and mass murder as a side effect. That is the real issue here not guns. Every school shooter has been on psych drugs. You can look at the rise of the use of these drugs and the correlation to the rise in school shootings.

          Until these drugs are outlawed the only solution will be to have armed personnel in the schools to protect from those that are out there waiting to be the next school shooter. The failure of the FBI to even follow up is the norm, they a hopelessly unable to do anything until the perp has acted.

      2. avatar Nick says:

        Because possibly stopping one person is worth trampling on the due process rights of countless others.

        Those restraining orders are issued ex-parte. The accused has no means to refute the claims until after their property is confiscated.

        1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

          Then let’s clean them up and make them pass constitutional muster. 17 out of 17 murdered students and faculty members agree: “The world is not perfect, so let’s not even attempt a solution” is not a viable position.

        2. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          If you believe in 2A then you believe the world’s not perfect. Jonathan, your post is foolish because it’s based on emotion rather than reality.

  2. avatar Smitty says:

    Agreed about the enforcement of existing laws.
    And any new law is just “feel good BS”.

  3. avatar Marx was ok, Bakhunin was better says:

    But guuuyyysss, those aren’t Nazi sympathies, they’re freedom sympathies, it’s about the 1st amendment, remember?

    But yeah, you are right though, he passed the check. There, that’s the failure as far as firearms are concerned. The regulations are already in place, it’s just that they’re poorly administered. Now all this other behavioral stuff needs some space in the headlines of news sites. The kid was a moron long before he owned a gun.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Any time the alt-left makes claim about “nazi sympathies”, I know it’s complete bullshit. Case in point, take the attempts by the ADL to paint this guy as some sort of “white supremacist” despite an abject lack of evidence to the point where even HuffPo called bullshit. (and you know your alt-left bullshit is ripe when Huff-Po calls you on it.)

      1. avatar Marx was ok, Bakhunin was better says:

        do you honestly think being incapable of nuance is a sign of intelligence?

        like all day, every day, you are absolutely sure you can draw a clear distinct line between two manufactured sides of an issue. Try to extrapolate that 20 years from now and imagine what that is going to do to your mental health, Seryoja

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          If you can’t tell the difference between the alt-left and alt-right, it’s mostly because there are very few, if any.

          Want an example? Take any Bernie speech mentioning “the 1%” and replace “the 1%” with “Jews”… what do you get? An early Hitler speech.

      2. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

        4chan gamed the ADL and thereby the press into the “white supremacist” line.

        Then they pulled the rug on the ADL.

        It showed just how biased the press (and the ADL/SPLC/etc) are.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yup, and it was glorious. Never underestimate the power of weaponized autism.

        2. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

          The press has never lived down #GamerGate.

          They’re about to get served again, and again, and again. When 4chan smells success, they capitalize on it.

        3. avatar Mack Bolan says:

          /pol/ Is never wrong.

  4. avatar Hannibal says:

    I’m not sure what social services was supposed to do about it to be honest, especially when he turned 18. They don’t have the power to imprison or deny gun sales. Sure, they could have called the FBI or something but we’ve seen what that gets you.

    1. avatar John in IN says:

      There are cases where child services has removed kids from a home because they were being home schooled. Here they enabled a homicidal maniac. Maybe its time to declare DCS a clear and present danger.

      1. avatar TruthTellers says:

        Child Protective Services and other gov’t organizations like them are useless wastes of money and exist only to give incompetent social workers a gov’t pension for their shitty work. It’s basically welfare, only people have to dress nice and be able to read.

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        They did no such thing. There was no evidence of abuse. He was under psych care. Removing him from the home would, if anything, prove more disruptive. Easy to say that something should have been done in hindsight but it’s a lot harder beforehand.

        …unless you want CPS, social services, etc barging into people’s lives a LOT more. Is that what you want?

    2. avatar Marty says:

      Forget social services. I’ve seen them do some horrible things in Kalifornia. However if Florida has similar laws to Kalifornia, law enforcement can force a 72 hour commitment if the person shows he/she is a danger to themselves or others. What is now known about this shooter, he qualifies, and if the Dr. agrees the subject can be held for treatment. This would have been the correct time to place him in the NICS system.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        Fux NICS! It is an unconstitutional violation of the “…shall not be infringed.” clause of the Second Amendment.

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        The problem with what you’re suggesting is not the question of whether he would qualify- because when the authorities want someone to qualify, they can always find a way- but how many others would qualify.

        A 16 year old girl expresses suicidal thoughts after a breakup… gets tossed involuntarily into a psych hold and can never own a gun.

        A 15 year old boy gets mad and punches a classmate in school because he got called fat. Social services sees that his family owns guns and doesn’t have a problem with him throwing a punch at a bully. They decide they had better error on the side of caution- BOOM, he’s got a psych hold on his record.

        How many others a you willing to throw under the bus to save one life? Because when you tell “social services” CPS etc that they aren’t doing enough, they’ll do more. But I guarantee you, you will NOT see them only do the exact percentage more needed to stop the next school shooter.

        The real damming inaction here, as I see it, was from the FBI when it failed to investigate multiple reports of him threatening to shoot up a school (even if it was only to bring that information to the attention of the local authorities), not nebulous “self-harm” worries.

        1. avatar Marty says:

          I agree with you that it a touchy situation. Not sure how the law works with juvenile 72 hour comitals. I believe once the juvenile turns 18 the records are expunged unless it’s a criminal matter and was tried as an adult. Could be wrong though. I’m not even sure the 72 hour comital law applies to juveniles. However, I do believe the law needs to be changed regarding forced comitals and gun rights. If the person is ruled there is no danger then the doctor who makes this decision should be required to notify the autorities of this decision. I don’t believe 72 comitals qualify for the ‘no firearm’. It’s a real problem though. I’ve seen cases where person was ruled insane by the court, was comitted to an instution and a few years later the doctor says the person is no longer a danger, releases him and within 24 hours the person rapes and murders another victim. I don’t know what the answer to the problem is.

        2. avatar Toni says:

          i would say if they re-offend within say 6 months of being released by a doctor/ parole board then those determining the release also go to jail and the person re-offending gets never to be released or the death penalty. this would also depend on the original crime and the new crime. if it was simply petty crime like shop lifting due to financial hardship maybe not but for all serious crimes very definitely.

        3. avatar Marty says:

          I like it!

    3. avatar Nick says:

      If he was showing signs of self harm (which appears to be the case) then they’d have a clear case for demanding a psych evaluation and potentially committing him pending its outcome.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        Then they would have to involuntarily commit every participant in the X-Games.

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        It takes a lot of claim of self harm to do that. Minor cutting does not suffice, believe it or not.

        If they took his guy in for a forced psych hold on what they had they would be taking a LOT of other people in as well. Not sure you guys really want what you’re claiming to want.

    4. avatar Sprocket says:

      Just like they do with suspected child molesters; report the fruitcake to law enforcement.

  5. avatar former water walker says:

    It seems EVERYONE effed up…but “gunz” are the problem. Keep your powder dry.

  6. avatar PeterK says:

    the school also knew that the kid was disturbed but their policies prevented them from reporting him

  7. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    The government (social services) said the kid was not a threat. Is ok, the government said so.
    Sarc switch on.

  8. avatar Chris says:

    Hate to be that guy again who plays devils advocate, but supporting the nazis and ‘planning’ to buy a gun aren’t crimes. This is the second time I’ve had to say this, the news is going on like they lacked the responsibility to stop him when really, I’m just not seeing a whole lot of evidence either way. You ever been in a social services office? Each employee has anywhere from 50 to 200 clients to manage at once, it’s a grow up and burn out industry and they’re all underpaid.

    At one time I lived in florida and I was sent to an inpatient facility under something called the baker act. This happened, two or three times. I remember the place was very cold, it was boring, and within three days after I saw a doctor, I was cut loose. Met some interesting people while I was there, we were all just cooling off and in need of some serious rest.

    1. avatar DoomGuy says:

      I’m in the same boat as far as playing deviled advocate. Being a “Nazi sympathizer” isn’t illegal. Being “weird” isn’t illegal, nor is it grounds to lock someone up.

      There probably was a crime committed when he made his repeated statements. But nobody did anything about it.

      This will be used by the rabid soccer moms and the soy boys to attack people who merely are different and haven’t committed any crime, as well as to criminalize difference of opinion. It’s disgusting.

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      You ever been in a social services office? Each employee has anywhere from 50 to 200 clients to manage at once, it’s a grow up and burn out industry and they’re all underpaid.

      REALLY? I’d submit that any “social worker”/pshrink on the gov;t dole who is collecting more than $1.50/hr is massively ripping of the taxpayer with their BS mumbo jumbo.

    3. avatar CLarson says:

      I would be careful buying the “Nazi sympathies” line. Remember special interest groups like the ADL and SPLC think the “ok” sign 👌 and pictures of drinking milk mean you are a Nazi. Notice the article does not go into detail what the actual symbol. For all we know it could be “got milk?” The media is thirsty for their white supremacist school shooter poster boy, the actual truth does not matter.

  9. avatar BG says:

    Now I understand that they should’ve done something but you can prosecute someone for just saying things even though the things they say are disturbing. Now I do believe if the threat is credible and someone is actually planning something then you can get them in the act but if someone is just talking and not showing any progress on moving forward with the plan, then what can you really do?

  10. avatar Ralph says:

    The murdering punk also threatened to kill his ex-girlfriend’s new boyfriend and actually jumped him twice, which is why the killer was expelled from school.

    Threatening to kill someone would seem to be a crime, but even if it’s not, it would be reasonable grounds for some kind of criminal investigation.

    Isn’t it?

    Don’t talk to me about “pre-crime” or “thought crimes” because you’re just embarrassing yourselves. This bastard committed a slew of crimes but nobody did a damn thing.

    1. avatar TruthTellers says:

      You can be outright psychotic and be allowed to walk the streets. I remember the news story when the Navy yard shooter, the Black guy, was in Newport, RI at a hotel, he either called the cops or someone else did, but he told the cop that there were voices coming from the floor, ceiling, etc. Did the cop call and ambulance for a mental health screening? Nope, instead he told Alexis, “Don’t talk back to them.”

      Then the cop left and probably went back to sitting on his ass in his cruiser looking like a big shot with the badge and gun. Protect and serve my ass…

    2. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      He also wailed on his adoptive mother at least twice with blunt objects. That’s clear-cut domestic violence under the current statutes, right?

      1. avatar Toni says:

        yes it certainly is, even when a kid does it to a parent if there are serious marks left. i may have clashed with my own parents on a number of occasions when i was a teen but i never hit back but that was because they took heed of the warning snarl i gave. my parents did on a few occasions take discipline a bit too far hence my reaction. in saying that though i never hit someone that had not hit me first at school or anywhere else. a couple of the beltings i got from parents were from fights i had ended up in only because someone had attacked me first. BTW my parents were turn the other cheek types….. nearly 30 years later they are starting to realize that i was right to stand my ground

    3. avatar binder says:

      Threatened to kill his ex-girlfriend’s new boyfriend and jumped him. OK how many kids do that in high school. Just how many kids are you going to put into an institution? Typical year there are 130000 kids expelled. And lets just say they managed to put him on the “prohibited” list. How hard would a private sale have been, or should we ban those? It is great to say they should do this or that, but you have to do it to everyone. Back to those 130000 kids.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        The maniac made a fool out of you when he killed 17 people. Wise up.

        1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          You need to re-read his post until you understand it.

    4. avatar Aussie pub brawler says:

      this bastard committed a slew of crimes but nobody did a damn thing

      and…. the evidence for that is… what exactly?
      “media reports”?
      in fact: not even that much… just UN-substantiated media ‘claims’….


  11. avatar Mean Old Mike says:

    They managed to arrest a guy in Florida last December for a drawing (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/stickman-drawing-school-shooting-student-s-homework-leads-florida-man-n826481)…….. yet there was nothing the smart people who rule us could do about N. Cruz?

  12. avatar Ralph says:

    Look, I get it. You don’t trust the government. Well, guess what — neither do I.

    But I trust maniacs even less.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Maniacs and government are the same things. Governments have killed far more people than any regular maniac. Get a clue.

  13. avatar ironicatbest says:

    Bullshit wasn’t to long ago some Chinese kid was tooling up, cop car look a like, stock piling ammo , bullet proof vest and the cop that stopped him got trashed on TTGA for arresting him for thrity round mag. So bullshit

  14. avatar Aussie pub brawler says:

    “nazi sympathies” ?
    what the HELL does that mean?
    some-one who ‘takes issue’ with their country being invaded by illegal, NON-white(s) [?]
    a Trump supporter?


  15. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    The Three L’s Libertarians Liberals and the Left, have all said it’s wonderful to have the 1st amendment so, national socialists can march in Jewish neighborhoods and call for the killing of jews.

    I remember this from the 1970s.

    I also remember when they said it was ok for the KKK to march in black neighborhoods carrying guns.

  16. avatar Warlocc says:

    I knew someone that had to undergo mandatory counseling over a joke in high school. Why wasn’t the same done with this kid.

    Forget guns, there should have been counseling and intervention long before gun laws even played a factor.

  17. avatar Anon says:

    The county is Heavily Democratic. The county commissioners voted to require the school NOT be allowed to pass info about troubled kids to the police (who were asleep anyway). Their reasoning was that started the trail to jail.

    Gee, troubled kids, acting out buying guns, kicked out of school. Not reporting them to the police…….what could go wrong?

  18. avatar DerryM says:

    Trump is saying the Background Check system needs to be “strengthened” and a MAJOR Florida Republican Donor, Al Hoffman Jr., is saying he won’t raise/give millions to the GOP if they don’t pass a ban on “military style assault weapons”.

    We feared Trump would throw us under the bus and if Hoffman closes the purse strings that may just goad Congress to play the “do something” theater game.


    None of this has happened yet, but be aware and pay attention.

  19. avatar Joe says:

    There were many red flags and opportunities for state and federal officials to do something to prevent this guy from committing this act. But we place too much trust in government to keep these things from happening. We are told the NICS will keep “mentally Ill people” from acquiring guns. We are told “say something” so the LE will investigate. We are told “gun free zones” keep us safe. None of these government solutions are effective so why don’t we harden the targets with better security and make sure there is at least one armed person for each 500 students in the school?
    The left and the media don’t want that discussion and people die because of it.

  20. avatar JoeVK says:

    Typical social services. They overreact to minor things and ignore massive flashing neon warning signs.

  21. avatar AFGus says:

    So many failures, and not one single proposed gun control law from the DemocRats would have changed a thing, or prevented what this psychotic kid did.

    1. avatar Marty says:

      The demoncrats don’t care about saving lives or preventing a criminal act. All they care about eliminating the 2A, plain and simple.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        The democrats care about infringing on rights and replacing them with privileges; the same as republicans. Begging government permission to exercise even the most basic of inalienable individual rights is what both parties offer. Both are tyranny in a different package.

        1. avatar Marty says:

          John, for the most part, politicians of both parties are corrupt. I’m not a republican, but I have to say I can’t think of when republicans had control of congress, they passed a major gun control bill. Not in recent history. You can’t say that of the demonrats. Yea, trump is looking to do something with the bump fire stocks and maybe stiffen the NICS. NICS needs to be strengthened. When the ass hole in Texas was able to obtain an AR with both mental issues and DV issues, there is a problem. Now please realize, NICS is already law, so requiring LE and shrinks to properly utilize it is not really gun control, it’s LE and shrink control. If you are one of those who believe NICS should be eliminated, I’m sorry, you’re just wrong. Violent felons and the mentally unstable have absolutely no right to possess firearms, period. If you want non violent felons who have not committed any crimes against another person to be able to have a firearm, then by all means get the politicians to pass such a law. That’s their job. I’m one of the most pro 2A folks out there. I’m an avid owner and shooter of firearms, but I’m also very anti criminal.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Republicans infringe upon rights just as democrats do. It’s not always the 2A but they do none-the-less.

          I can’t help people too cowardly to be free. Take responsibility and stop trying to shift it off to government. That always ends in tyranny.

          “if you are one of those who believe NICS should be eliminated, I’m sorry, you’re just wrong. Violent felons and the mentally unstable have absolutely no right to possess firearms, period. If you want non violent felons who have not committed any crimes against another person to be able to have a firearm, then by all means get the politicians to pass such a law. That’s their job. I’m one of the most pro 2A folks out there. I’m an avid owner and shooter of firearms, but I’m also very anti criminal.”

          A little rape or a lot of rape… You are pro-rape, I am not. A little gun control or a lot of gun control… You are pro-gun control. I am not. You claim to be “one of the most pro 2A folks out there.” No, no you aren’t; not by a long shot. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Interestingly, it doesn’t say anything about the gun control that you support.

          Besides, even if there were no Second Amendment or even a Constitution, I still recognize inalienable individual rights. You apparently do not.

        3. avatar m says:

          So, you think violent felons and the mentally deranged should have the right to own firearms? If that’s the case, I certainly hope they are your neighbors, not mine.

        4. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “So, you think violent felons and the mentally deranged should have the right to own firearms?”

          I not only think it; I KNOW it. They have an inalienable right to defend themselves. That is self-evident. Furthermore, even the Second Amendment doesn’t make an exception for felons. Once you start adding exceptions to the text that do not exist, you are supporting gun control.

        5. avatar Marty says:

          You bet I am. When a person commits a violent crime, knowing if he/she does, they will lose those rights, they lose those rights. It’s called the consequences of your actions. Those exist in all parts of society. Now that’s not the same with mentally deranged persons as they cant help it in most cases. However, the innocents in society must be protected from the dangerous in society. For me it’s simply common sense, something that is horribly lacking in this country now a days.

        6. avatar Toni says:

          Marty unfortunately for you these laws do absolutely nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and i mean NOTHING! the fact is that the only thing that will stop them is as it used to be very harsh sentencing laws for breaking the law. keep the laws very simple…. the barest basics, based on the 10 commandments (and no i am not christian in fact i am pagan) is where it should be. these politicians are acting in treason and sedition. this was at one point a very very serious crime that held the severest of all penalties….. not simply hanging but rather Hang, Draw and Quarter. this was just the begining….. they then scattered the remains to the four winds out past national boarders….. why? it was a crime that would not just affect a few or even just a generation…… it affects people for multiple generations and the laws you are suggesting have done, are doing and will continue doing exactly that until they are completely removed. the other problem is that over time these laws are just added to removing more rights, and more rights and on and on. no there is no middle ground on rights especially where govt is concerned as history has proven time and time again that of ALL groups govt is the greatest violator be they king, parliament or congress and this is why the 2A was put in place. it is not about self defense against the common criminal though it is a part of it, it is not about hunting or target shooting though those are also quite valid uses for them. the intent was to be able to defend AGAINST TRAITOROUS GOVERNMENT. the fact that they were better armed than the british (their govt before they rose up) the fact that they well knew of the possible advances in technology (the puckle gun comes to mind which had been developed 70 years before), the fact that while they quashed several rebelions early in the history of the new nation yet never attempted any form of gun control…(simply jailed or hung those involved) all show just how they felt about the right to keep and bear arms. gun control ONLY AFFECTS THE LAW ABIDING….. EVER!!! it never effects either the street criminal or the govt. Traitor Lite is still a GDamn TRAITOR.

        7. avatar Marty says:

          I’m sorry, I didn’t understand a lot of what you wrote, but I think I get the gist of it. I absolutely agree laws preventing felons from possessing firearms do not work in a lot of cases. However when a felon is caught with a firearm, there are both state and federal violations which use to bring heavy prison sentences. Unfortunately with lenient judges, states giving real early releases to violent crooks and even now, the feds are considering a bill to hand out early releases, so prison sentences mean less and less every day. The armed enhancement for violent crime generally added many years to the sentence, but it seems neither holder or lynch was interested. This allowed crooks out of prison many years earlier only to commit more crimes against more victims. I don’t know what the recidivism rate is any more but it use to be 70% in Kalifornia.70%! My guess it’s even higher now that the crooks know if they get caught again, the sentence will be much lower and they won’t have to spend much time in prison. So basically, if the laws preventing ex cons from possessing firearms only prevent some of them from using a gun in a crime, that’s still a good thing. And if the prosecutors started charging this law more often, and the courts hand down sentences reflecting the armed enhancement, the dangerous crooks would spend more time in prison. At a minimum, as long as they are in prison, they won’t be victimizing the general public.

        8. avatar Toni says:

          Marty i agree so what we need to do is force the judges to enforce the laws that are already there (maybe the judges themselves get a hanging offense for releasing criminals on grounds of cultural differences or similar for serious violent crime such as murder) and long jail sentences and permanent loss of any ability to work in the legal system or even as a cop for any lesser crimes where the person is found guilty.

          there is absolutely no reason to put burdens and or removal of rights on the law abiding that that have committed no crime. to do so is criminal in and of itself

          further to this part of the reason for the increase in crime is the complexity of laws and the legal system that virtually makes a criminal of people just trying to go about their day to day lives while trying not to break any laws. this has the effect of getting people to the point where they feel as though they cant do anything without breaking the law so they say fuck it and go into crime when they otherwise would not. keep the laws simple and easy to understand and you avoid this. way too many laws is where you are in the US now and we are here in australia.

          so i want you to think about something. do you wish to live in a country where the law is understood and people are free or do you want to live in a country where you are either a criminal or a slave.

        9. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Does your gun control stop violent felons from possessing firearms? If you answer yes then, congratulations… gun control works!

          I currently live in a high crime neighborhood. Gun control does not stop local criminals from carrying firearms.

        10. avatar Marty says:

          In a lot of cases, laws don’t prevent folks from violating those laws. But upon conviction for violating those laws, the crook is incarcerated. While in custody, he/she can no longer victimize persons. To me that is a good thing. But in some cases, laws are an incentive to folks not to violate them. This does 2 things. It keeps the potential violator out of prison, thereby saving taxpayers a ton of money. At the same time, it keeps the potential victims from suffering the results of that crime.

        11. avatar John in Ohio says:

          It’s not about consequences, Marty. Those exist naturally. You are supporting gun control… The government infringing upon the individual right to keep and bear arms.

          It’s not a problem that you support gun control. That’s your choice. It’s just annoying when you try to pretend that you don’t. 😉

          “I’m one of the most pro 2A folks out there.” No, you aren’t, Marty. You support gun control.

          Remember natural consequences. The gun control you support today will be the foundation of further gun control tomorrow. Consequences, consequences, consequences. You just can’t escape those pesky consequences.

        12. avatar Marty says:

          Sorry John, I’m not supporting gun control, I’m supporting criminal control. I believe gun control is when the government restricts honest law abiding citizens from their weapons.

          I don’t believe in NFA restrictions on law abiding citizens. I do believe in states rights. If a state like Kalifornia wants to ban all weapons, it’s their right. They tried to do that to me and I voted with my feet. I moved to a very pro 2A state and have never looked back. It’s the right of all citizens to do that same thing. But that’s just it, criminal control, not gun control. There are a lot things ex convicts can no longer legally do, possessing firearms are just one of them.

        13. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “In a lot of cases, laws don’t prevent folks from violating those laws.”

          Does not the Constitution trump any law made under its “authority”? What does the Second Amendment actually say? We aren’t talking about committing a murder, a robbery, etc. Are there specifically worded amendments in the Bill of Rights for those? We are talking simply about the right to keep and bear arms. Is it illegal, under the plain text of the Second Amendment, for an individual to keep and bear arms? Or, does it read, “shall not be infringed”?

          If you are going to argue that “shall not be infringed” doesn’t mean “shall not be infringed” then you are arguing for the violation of that amendment and furtherance of unconstitutional gun control.

          Beyond constitutions, there is an unalienable, natural individual right to self defense. It encompasses the right to keep and bear arms. THIS is the origin of the Second Amendment protections of the individual right to keep and bear arms. The right exists independent of any words.

        14. avatar Marty says:

          I understand where you are coming from. Maybe it’s me who needs to get congress to change the Constitution to preclude ex felons from the 2A. As a matter of fact, that would be a great idea for the Convention of the States. I will definitely bring it up with them. My guess is the very vast majority of the voting public would be all for it. My guess you would be against that also, am I right?

        15. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “I understand where you are coming from. Maybe it’s me who needs to get congress to change the Constitution to preclude ex felons from the 2A. As a matter of fact, that would be a great idea for the Convention of the States. I will definitely bring it up with them. My guess is the very vast majority of the voting public would be all for it.”

          Sure. Knock yourself out. This ought to be a hoot.

          At least if you were successful at changing the 2A then you could correctly claim that you support it. As it stands now, what you support is not what the 2A says.

          “My guess you would be against that also, am I right?”

          Against what? Please specify.

        16. avatar Marty says:

          Against changing the 2A to preclude ex felons and the mentally deranged from the 2A. The Convention of the States folks are getting closer to the required number of states every year. Up until now, I was for changing the 2A to remove the ambiguity in the 2A, and place the “Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed” in it’s own paragraph so the libs would have no argument.

        17. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “However, the innocents in society must be protected from the dangerous in society. For me it’s simply common sense, something that is horribly lacking in this country now a days.”

          Isn’t this pretty much what leftist anti-gunners claim? Some good old fashioned “common sense” gun control!

        18. avatar Marty says:

          Common sense criminal control.

        19. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “Against changing the 2A to preclude ex felons and the mentally deranged from the 2A.”

          Yes, I would be against that. This was asked and answered already.

          “The Convention of the States folks are getting closer to the required number of states every year. Up until now, I was for changing the 2A to remove the ambiguity in the 2A, and place the “Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed” in it’s own paragraph so the libs would have no argument.”

          You mean all it took was little ol’ me to sway your opinion? Wow, that’s some mighty strong 2A support you have there. ROTFL

          Like I wrote, knock yourself out. Lobby for anything and everything that your little heart desires. If it’s tyrannical enough, I might even offer to drive you to whatever meetings you need attend and make coffee for you; tea if you prefer.

          “I’m one of the most pro 2A folks out there.”
          No, Marty, you’re not. You are pro-whatever-2A-Marty-wishes-it-to-be. They ain’t the same. 😉

        20. avatar Marty says:

          Nope, I;m just against violent criminals and pro victim. If I had my way Violent criminals would just rot in prison, but that would be a violation of the Constitution. My guess is you are very pro violent felons and this is getting us nowhere. Have a great life, goodbye.

        21. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “Common sense criminal control” through gun control.

          Potatoes, potatoes. Tomatoes, tomatoes.

        22. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “this is getting us nowhere. Have a great life, goodbye.”

          Give me a call for that ride when you do that whole convention thingy. Drop me a note and let me know how that works out for y’all.

          If you decide to chop any of your firearms into pieces, please make sure you post a video. 😉

  22. avatar Justsomeguy says:

    “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” We do not have a working militia/posse commitatis today. A free society in which the citizenry has rights depend on them. Only you can prevent forest fires, only you can practice fire safety within your house. It is up to us to cover the pan that is on fire, to use the fire extinguisher to put out the trash can fire etc. If you wait for the fire department to do it, you most often have a calamity. Dealing with miscreants is no different. If you wait for the police, you will have a calamity.

    That school certainly had fire extinguishers and an automated fire suppression system. It also needed elemental access control and prepared members of the posse commitatis/militia

    This comment system sucks

    1. avatar Toni says:

      true and we need them in both your country and mine

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