Shooting in California High School
- Thread starter df53141
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Zjnovak
Member
When was this?
Navy96
US Veteran
StatesRightist
Member
23ABC News - Report: At least one person shot at Taft High School - Bakersfield News, Bakersfield, California News & Bakersfield News Local Headlines - KERO TurnTo23
Sounds like gangs or personal to me, one of the "victims" did not even go to the hospital.
Sounds like gangs or personal to me, one of the "victims" did not even go to the hospital.
StatesRightist
Member
I don't care if they form a chorus line and show pictures of shooting victims in the backgrounds. I will defend my Constitutional rights. I'm sick of the media, the gun owner wimps and anyone w/o the cajones to say it loudly and factually, you will only get them smoking.
StatesRightist
Member
This morning.
Moonman
Member
OH BOY!!!
This one used a SHOTGUN.
Shot one, called out another persons name, but the shot missed them.
This one used a SHOTGUN.
Shot one, called out another persons name, but the shot missed them.
justcruisen67
Member
UH OH better get them shotguns in with the AW.....
PeeShooter
Member
Here we go again in California
At least two people have been shot at a high school in Taft, Calif., near Bakersfield. Reports say the shooter is in custody. (FOX News)
I wrote my reps already:
Well here we go again; the media and the White House have made such a spectacular event out of the Connecticut shooting that, as one might expect, a copy cat has emerged today.
Let’s review:
In Connecticut…
• It was against a law when the child stole his mother’s gun.
• It was against a law when he shot his mother in the face.
• It was against a law when he stole his mother’s car.
• It was against a law when he took guns on school property.
• It was against a law when he forced his way into a school.
• It was against a law when he started shooting people and repeatedly broke that law till he quit shooting them.
Today’s shooting…
• It was against a law when he took guns on school property.
• It was against a law when he forced his way into a school.
• It was against a law when he started shooting people and repeatedly broke that law till he quit shooting them.
Where were the armed guards at today’s school shooting, like there are at the school Obama’s children attend and protect out government officials? It is nobody’s fault but the government that these shooting continue to happen. Government thinks “No Gun Zone” keeps crazy people with guns out…no it makes them go there. Government thinks disarming the public will disarm crazy criminals…no it makes their jobs as criminals easier and safer. If you want to take guns away from people to make us safer, take the guns away from all the crazy people and criminals and maybe give the confiscated guns to good people to assure safety incase you missed some. Clearly no law stops killings, and I know our government officials aren’t stupid; there is a country where everyone is required to have a gun and know how to use it and they have the lowest crime in the World; I know you know that. There are countries with crazy rules like Obama is trying to apply where the violent crime increased, in every one of those countries by 300%.
The 2011 deaths are as follows:
323 with firearms
496 with hammers intended to drive nails
650 with a knife
12,000 by drunk drivers
195,000 by medical malpractice
Obamacare appears to be the most dangerous threat to the American people; especially since it comes with a death panel that will end a life with the stroke of a pen from a government official.
NO LAW will stop this; government took the foundation away from this once Christian Country and now its harvest time. World wide it would appear that America needs to arm and train every person who can qualify to own a gun not take them away. The evidence is clear from our government’s example that armed guards are necessary at our schools to protect our children; NRA has offered that service free of charge, when are you going to take advantage of it? How many more children will government see slaughtered before they do something that is proven effective, armed guards like Obama’s children enjoy the safety of, or is the government going to continue to watch children be slaughtered till this is a big enough tragedy that they can “take advantage of” as democrats have so touted? How lucky the Democrats are that these shootings are so close together that they can “Not let this tragedy go to waste”.
Stop the talk about disarming the American good people; take the pen away from Obama who thinks he will disarm us by Executive Order. He is not the American King, he as well as all government is limited by the Constitution that is meant to protect us from the government gone mad as ours is appearing.
At least two people have been shot at a high school in Taft, Calif., near Bakersfield. Reports say the shooter is in custody. (FOX News)
I wrote my reps already:
Well here we go again; the media and the White House have made such a spectacular event out of the Connecticut shooting that, as one might expect, a copy cat has emerged today.
Let’s review:
In Connecticut…
• It was against a law when the child stole his mother’s gun.
• It was against a law when he shot his mother in the face.
• It was against a law when he stole his mother’s car.
• It was against a law when he took guns on school property.
• It was against a law when he forced his way into a school.
• It was against a law when he started shooting people and repeatedly broke that law till he quit shooting them.
Today’s shooting…
• It was against a law when he took guns on school property.
• It was against a law when he forced his way into a school.
• It was against a law when he started shooting people and repeatedly broke that law till he quit shooting them.
Where were the armed guards at today’s school shooting, like there are at the school Obama’s children attend and protect out government officials? It is nobody’s fault but the government that these shooting continue to happen. Government thinks “No Gun Zone” keeps crazy people with guns out…no it makes them go there. Government thinks disarming the public will disarm crazy criminals…no it makes their jobs as criminals easier and safer. If you want to take guns away from people to make us safer, take the guns away from all the crazy people and criminals and maybe give the confiscated guns to good people to assure safety incase you missed some. Clearly no law stops killings, and I know our government officials aren’t stupid; there is a country where everyone is required to have a gun and know how to use it and they have the lowest crime in the World; I know you know that. There are countries with crazy rules like Obama is trying to apply where the violent crime increased, in every one of those countries by 300%.
The 2011 deaths are as follows:
323 with firearms
496 with hammers intended to drive nails
650 with a knife
12,000 by drunk drivers
195,000 by medical malpractice
Obamacare appears to be the most dangerous threat to the American people; especially since it comes with a death panel that will end a life with the stroke of a pen from a government official.
NO LAW will stop this; government took the foundation away from this once Christian Country and now its harvest time. World wide it would appear that America needs to arm and train every person who can qualify to own a gun not take them away. The evidence is clear from our government’s example that armed guards are necessary at our schools to protect our children; NRA has offered that service free of charge, when are you going to take advantage of it? How many more children will government see slaughtered before they do something that is proven effective, armed guards like Obama’s children enjoy the safety of, or is the government going to continue to watch children be slaughtered till this is a big enough tragedy that they can “take advantage of” as democrats have so touted? How lucky the Democrats are that these shootings are so close together that they can “Not let this tragedy go to waste”.
Stop the talk about disarming the American good people; take the pen away from Obama who thinks he will disarm us by Executive Order. He is not the American King, he as well as all government is limited by the Constitution that is meant to protect us from the government gone mad as ours is appearing.
PeeShooter
Member
Sorry 2hawk, Being somewhat new here I looked for where the last thread on gun tragedies was. If the Mods want to move it it's OK with me.
Students at the school were questioning his continued presence there nearly a month before the shootings took place.
Time-bomb: Students at Taft High School tweeted worries about alleged shooter last month; ‘Why is he still allowed in school?’ | Twitchy
Time-bomb: Students at Taft High School tweeted worries about alleged shooter last month; ‘Why is he still allowed in school?’ | Twitchy
longranger
Member
"School Resource Officer" was absent that day, snowed in with 3" of snow as I hear it, and 20 deg.Rough weather in Cali. So LE and school officials, decide that they really don't need a SRO that day and no one backfills the SRO position. If this was a SWAT assignment or an authorized O.T. spot it would have been filled, it is considered less than ideal police work.
amazingflapjack
US Veteran
Sir: I would request that you speak for yourself; I am part of the "we" here, and I am not doomed, but even if I were, I would want to reserve the right to inform an adversary of that for myself, which I would not do. Regards.
StatesRightist
Member
The latest....Students had been telling the Administration this kid was going to pop for a month now. He'd been bullied for over a year....same stuff, different school. How about we make the right people responsible for the events? The shooter and the negligent school staff?
tacreload
Member
You sir have hit the nail squarely on the head.Maybe they didn't want to hurt his feelings or infringe on his rights.Could have been a whole lot worse and hopefully the people in charge there have learned a valuable lesson but I doubt it.And if the SRO was afraid of three inches of snow and cold temperatures I doubt that he would have been of much use anyway.
PeeShooter
Member
My letter to representative; post 12. These guys are like writing to a brick wall.
His reply:
Dear W:
Thank you for contacting me regarding Senator Feinstein's assault weapons ban proposal. I appreciate hearing from you.
The numerous tragedies that our nation has had to face over the past year have been staggering. My own family, like all Americans, has been repeatedly shocked and deeply saddened by the violence we have witnessed, and my heart continues to be with the victims and their families. As Coloradans, we know how this type of tragedy can shake a community to its core and in the aftermath of these abhorrent acts our priority should be on supporting the survivors and families, and healing our communities.
We must have a real discussion in this country about finding ways to stop these senseless shootings. I believe a combination of improved access to mental health services, restrictions on certain weapons intended for the battlefield, and elimination of the gun show loophole are sensible steps that can protect our communities and particularly, our children. In Colorado, we support the right to bear arms and the ability of people to recreate, hunt, and protect their homes, and we want to keep the wrong weapons out the hands of the wrong people. I believe our state can come together to have a civil discussion that addresses these issues and as the President's taskforce releases its recommendations to prevent and reduce gun violence, we will ensure that Colorado's voices are heard.
Senator Dianne Feinstein of California plans to introduce a bill in the 113th Congress that will prohibit the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices. The ban will include 120 specifically-named firearms and will apply to large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds. The bill will also require grandfathered weapons to be registered under the National Firearms Act and will include a background check of the owner and any future transferees. Although Senator Feinstein has not introduced the bill, she has indicated that she will do so at the start of the legislative session.
I look forward to reviewing Senator Feinstein's proposal, along with others brought before Senate. Let us all continue to keep the communities affected by these tragic acts in our thoughts and prayers.
I value the input of fellow Coloradans in considering the wide variety of important issues and legislative initiatives that come before the Senate. I hope you will continue to inform me of your thoughts and concerns.
For more information about my priorities as a U.S. Senator, I invite you to visit my website at Michael Bennet - United States Senator for Colorado : Home. Again, thank you for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Senator Michael Bennet, Colorado
My reply back:
Your reply to me about Senator Feinstein's assault weapons ban proposal indicates that you plan to vote in favor if it; that is not acceptable.
First of all we have learned beyond a shadow of a doubt that when Government gets on a mission such as this all reasonable thinking goes out the window and what you say is not what happens. There is no such thing as 120 named assault weapons as the government calls them, so as to enrage the ignorant public, weapons don't assault people, mentally disturbed people do. Under the Second Amendment sir we have an absolute right to own firearms and use them in a responsible way and that "shall not be infringed".
Mental health is one of the more costly human treatments and worst covered my insurance. As well it isn't required to live, like a heart condition or cancer so people don't pay for it.
America needs to clean house of politicians that intend to put the public at risk and deceive us along the way. A so called assault weapon in Feinstein's eyes is virtually anything that shoots bullets; but that doesn't matter, it's a FIREARM covered by the Second Amendment.
If you want to stop these crazy people that misuse firearms, put God back in this Country that was founded on Christian principals. You're trying to stop drunk driving my taking cars away from people who don't get drunk.
Any vote for gun control is not acceptable.
His reply:
Dear W:
Thank you for contacting me regarding Senator Feinstein's assault weapons ban proposal. I appreciate hearing from you.
The numerous tragedies that our nation has had to face over the past year have been staggering. My own family, like all Americans, has been repeatedly shocked and deeply saddened by the violence we have witnessed, and my heart continues to be with the victims and their families. As Coloradans, we know how this type of tragedy can shake a community to its core and in the aftermath of these abhorrent acts our priority should be on supporting the survivors and families, and healing our communities.
We must have a real discussion in this country about finding ways to stop these senseless shootings. I believe a combination of improved access to mental health services, restrictions on certain weapons intended for the battlefield, and elimination of the gun show loophole are sensible steps that can protect our communities and particularly, our children. In Colorado, we support the right to bear arms and the ability of people to recreate, hunt, and protect their homes, and we want to keep the wrong weapons out the hands of the wrong people. I believe our state can come together to have a civil discussion that addresses these issues and as the President's taskforce releases its recommendations to prevent and reduce gun violence, we will ensure that Colorado's voices are heard.
Senator Dianne Feinstein of California plans to introduce a bill in the 113th Congress that will prohibit the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices. The ban will include 120 specifically-named firearms and will apply to large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds. The bill will also require grandfathered weapons to be registered under the National Firearms Act and will include a background check of the owner and any future transferees. Although Senator Feinstein has not introduced the bill, she has indicated that she will do so at the start of the legislative session.
I look forward to reviewing Senator Feinstein's proposal, along with others brought before Senate. Let us all continue to keep the communities affected by these tragic acts in our thoughts and prayers.
I value the input of fellow Coloradans in considering the wide variety of important issues and legislative initiatives that come before the Senate. I hope you will continue to inform me of your thoughts and concerns.
For more information about my priorities as a U.S. Senator, I invite you to visit my website at Michael Bennet - United States Senator for Colorado : Home. Again, thank you for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Senator Michael Bennet, Colorado
My reply back:
Your reply to me about Senator Feinstein's assault weapons ban proposal indicates that you plan to vote in favor if it; that is not acceptable.
First of all we have learned beyond a shadow of a doubt that when Government gets on a mission such as this all reasonable thinking goes out the window and what you say is not what happens. There is no such thing as 120 named assault weapons as the government calls them, so as to enrage the ignorant public, weapons don't assault people, mentally disturbed people do. Under the Second Amendment sir we have an absolute right to own firearms and use them in a responsible way and that "shall not be infringed".
Mental health is one of the more costly human treatments and worst covered my insurance. As well it isn't required to live, like a heart condition or cancer so people don't pay for it.
America needs to clean house of politicians that intend to put the public at risk and deceive us along the way. A so called assault weapon in Feinstein's eyes is virtually anything that shoots bullets; but that doesn't matter, it's a FIREARM covered by the Second Amendment.
If you want to stop these crazy people that misuse firearms, put God back in this Country that was founded on Christian principals. You're trying to stop drunk driving my taking cars away from people who don't get drunk.
Any vote for gun control is not acceptable.
Joewisc
US Veteran
The South tried that 150-odd years ago and it failed. Secession movements over the past several decades have never gained much traction. There's always Costa Rica or New Zealand.
