Oregon PD Says Chris Harper Mercer Was Shooter


The shooter has been id'd as Chris Harper Mercer. Obama made speech hours ago blaming the NRA, etc. as the problem! That tells me a LOT about the shooter. And the victims,

No votes yet

We have gunmen running around mass murdering innocent, unarmed people, police shooting paralyzed people in wheel chairs and police cavity searching people for a traffic violation.

The world is crazy.

At least your list is in the order of seriousness.

The crazy thing is setting up gun-free zones for mass shooters to routinely target.

Liberals are responsible for those. 11 of every 12 mass shootings that take place today, occur in a gun-free zone.


I keep telling people that Liberals may as well by pulling the nut's triggers themselves. Liberals are responsible for the vast majority of mass shootings and it's time for people to acknowledge that.

The school this shooting took place at was not a "gun free zone". Oregon law allows for carrying a weapon in this case.

According to news reports, Umpqua Community College passed itself off as a gun free zone, and had written anti-gun policies which pretty much stated it was a gun free zone.

It doesn't matter what the law says when a pack of Liberals have local power; they try to take your guns away or otherwise oppress you. If you had open-carried a gun on the Umpqua campus before the shooting, their security force would have descended on you and arrested you or detained you. Period.

That's the reality here. Umpqua was a gun free zone for all practical purposes. And gun free zones are the real problem here. We're never going to ban guns in these united states. So demanding that people be disarmed in a publicly-accessible zone, is literal lunacy. Even non-publicly-accessible zones are a real risk, since a determined armed attacker can contrive a means of entering it. Once inside, he can wreak havoc on the disarmed twats there.

The only thing that secures you in an armed nation, is being armed. All gun free zones are foolish and ultimately provide a significant risk of fatality.

Arm the teachers, the judges, and the clerks. That's what works. (Sadly, teachers, judges and clerks tend to be anti-gun Liberal morons. So really a gun free zone is Darwinism in action. Gun free zones act to trap and kill stupid Liberals.)

Umpqua was, by law, not a "gun free zone". The state law was put in place specifically to counter any local request or policy that prevented carry in a public place. If someone wanted to carry they could. It is a well known law, especially among those that want to carry.

Again they had a stated no gun policy. What do you think they had in their provided literature? The law or the school policy?


Oh really? So how many instructors were armed at the time of the shooting? Give me a ball-park figure.

The question is necessarily rhetorical. You know and I know full well that any instructor that showed up with a gun in a holster would have been accosted by campus security people and then likely FIRED.

And know what? I'm sure any instructors who try to be armed in the future, post-shooting, will still be targeted for termination by the school administration. Liberals are anti-gun NUTS. They will never give up trying to take our guns away.

It's singularly disgusting that the Liberals have this new, delusional narrative that resolves around a lie about gun freedoms.

According to presidential contender Jeb! (don't call me a) Bush "stuff happens."
President Obama has already given two, thoughtful, meaningful responses to this very serious issue - republican presidential candidates - crickets. Or worse - like Jeb!

I'm going to miss having someone who knows what leadership is in the White house!


Insist any Dem running must do it. I love it when you do. Because the country doesn't agree and it'll make a 2016 win THAT much easier. Prove to the country the Dems didn't learn their lesson with Gore.


What does that mean?
Also, do you acknowledge that the US has a problem here? If so, what could improve it?

Enforcing laws already on the books? Stop coddling criminals, stop glorifying gun violence on tv and in movies, crack down on the myriads of lunatics running loose on the streets, for starters.

Early reports - i know these are not reliable and sometimes change - say that his guns were purchased legally. I guess my questions go far beyond this instance, so might not answer all the questions, but what do we do about this - legally purchased guns that are used in such crimes?
And by they way, let this progressive liberal attempt to cut some of you off at the pass, i, and no liberals i know, want to abolish the 2nd amendment, take your guns, ban hand guns or any other such extremes.
i just think that we - WE Americans - have a problem here.
any suggestions?

You sure about that? When asked what he would do the President praised the actions of other countries singling out Australia. What was their gun control? Confiscation.


I knew an Aussie and he said a special tax was also passed to reimburse gun owners for guns and magazines. You got whatever you said your stuff was worth, within reason. He said he made a bundle, too. Notice how the antis' NEVER mention Switzerland? Strong evil can only be defeated by stronger evil. Ask Japan or Germany.There are truly evil people running around loose. Every other program on the boob tube shows gun violence, all the time. Start there.

Gun-grabbers are largely extremely racist (i.e. they're anti-White) Liberals. They can't mention Switzerland since they'd have to acknowledge that a LACK of diversity leads to social stability, hence concomitant safety for people in general. Switzerland's demographics look like the average Liberal suburb or exurb... it's over 90% White.

And Swiss households are required by law to keep full auto assault rifles in them. I think the situation is similar to Israeli gun laws.

Not really G-Man, automatic weapons are not routinely permitted in Swiss households. A lot of people get the wrong impression that Switzerland has little or no gun control, when in fact the Swiss have rather strong gun control. In order to purchase a weapon you must already have a permit issued by the government. Every weapon is registered, and buyers must also go through an extensive background check. For open carry you must prove you have a reason. There are also strict rules when it comes to selling guns.

Do a little research and you will find that Swiss gun laws are not quite what you think they are. True, there are a lot of gun owners in that country, and they allow former military persons to keep assault weapons that have been turned semi; but when it comes to gun laws, I would argue they are very strict compared to the U.S.

What about active duty soldiers, where do they store their full auto rifles? And why no mass shootings there?

G-Man, the Swiss Army is a militia, and yes, active militiamen store their weapons at home. They aren't out carrying them around waiting to take down a mass shooter. The whole thing is well regulated by the government, including the type of ammunition they are allowed to have. To say, as you did, that Swiss households are required to keep automatic weapons shows a lack of understanding.

Would you like to adopt the gun laws of Switzerland? Remember, the Swiss don't have the right to own guns. Owning a gun there is by permit only, that means permission from the government. Background checks are mandatory, and a record of every gun is kept in the government's possession by mandatory registration. Open carry is only granted to those that have a reason such as security. Those of you who think Swiss gun laws are the best are actually advocating for a lot of government control.

As to why there are so few mass shootings in Switzerland, could it be their laws?

You mean, their PEOPLE, not their laws. The guns used in the last few shootings here were all registered, as anyone who buys a gun from a dealer already knows. If guns, even Swiss guns were the problem, the Swiss would have mass shootings too. Or, could it be that the Swiss are all decent, law abiding people? I think so.

It would be nice to think that all Swiss people are 100% decent and law abiding, but it would be naïve to think that of any population. The Swiss aren't deluding themselves. If absolutely all Swiss were 100% law abiding at all times there wouldn't have been a mass shooting there back around 2001 when a guy took his army rifle into a Swiss parliament building and killed 14 people with it. It was a rare mass killing in that country, but it did happen.

The Swiss do background checks before letting someone get a gun because they want to be responsible about their gun culture. Sure, a nut or two might slip through and be able to get a gun, but at least they try.

It's not the guns; it's guns in the wrong hands. That's why background checks make sense. Would you be for background checks in America?

"Would you be for background checks in America?"

No, of course not, just like I'd be against licensing people to write a book, or I'd be against police rousting people out of their homes to conduct summary searches of neighborhoods. Sound familiar? Like every American, you should be KEENLY against anything that strikes your civil rights. The right to keep and bear arms is one of those rights. It's RIGHT THERE in the US Constitution; it's not hard to find, it's the 2nd entry in our "Bill of Rights".

I really don't understand what the hell is wrong with so many millions of Americans that they read the Second Amendment and then conclude a minute, month, or decade later that the federal government can infringe on your right to keep and bear arms. What exactly does "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" mean to you, PMW? It's English, and as in 1793 as today, has the same meaning. Did you grow up speaking and reading English? Is that the real problem here?

No, no... the real problem here is that Liberals know full well what "shall not be infringed" means. They just don't care. They want to infringe and by god, they're going to do it. Look what they did to our gun rights for a fucking century, culminating in one of the most clearly unconstitutional laws ever passed: The Assault Weapon Ban of the 1990s.

I'm starting to think more and more that we need to dissolve this form of government, have a nice domestic shooting war, and once millions of domestic insurgents (i.e. Liberals) are piled into mass graves and forgotten, we can re-form our more-perfect union like it should have been all along.

This statement you made reminds me of someone...
"I'm starting to think more and more that we need to dissolve this form of government, have a nice domestic shooting war, and once millions of domestic insurgents (i.e. Liberals) are piled into mass graves and forgotten, we can re-form our more-perfect union like it should have been all along."

Let's see...who could that person be? There have been so many tyrannical dictators who thought this way and convinced idiots to followed them. It's hard to say exactly which one this comment is most like. It could be Hitler, but then again it could be Stalin or Mao as well. It's hard to say.

Nice outrage. And yet, you don't say anything about what "shall not be infringed" means. It's clear English. It means no background checks, since using a background check to infringe on your right to keep and bear arms, IS ILLEGAL. It's fundamentally illegal... since it's an unconstitutional act. It's the same as using the color of your shirt to infringe on your right to keep and bear arms. It's the same as using where you work or how you live, to infringe on your right to keep and bear arms.

Why do you Liberals constantly avoid answering what "shall not be infringed" means?

The Fascism you accuse me of, is really a modern invention, which by no mean coincidence matches the modern invention of Liberals in just totally ignoring the Second Amendment.

I leave you now with a quote by the man you should have been reminded of:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

I agree wit Jefferson's quote. We must identify those who threaten liberty and teach them that liberty is for everyone, not just the super-rich or a particular ethnic group or rlegion. Those who refuse should be allowed to go to someplace where they can practice their ideology. Maybe the South Pole hanging out with the penguins might be a great place.

So would be New Jersey. Sorry, I forgot, the Black Panthers asked for New Jersey, in the 1960s'. How did that work out?

Of course background checks might help, make that would help.


"Gun politics in Switzerland are unique in Europe. The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations. However, it is generally not permitted to keep army-issued ammunition, but compatible ammunition purchased for privately owned guns is permitted. At the end of military service period the previously used gun can be converted to a privately owned gun after a weapon acquisition permit has been granted (fully automatic weapons will be rebuilt into semi-automatic ones). Switzerland thus has a relatively high gun ownership rates (31% in 2005, declining). In recent times a minority of political opposition has expressed a desire for tighter gun regulations. A referendum in February 2011 rejected stricter gun control."

And so on. You're right; there's no right to open carry. But I'd argue that the USA and Switzerland are very similar in a way that hinges on the "militia" argument. Our Second Amendment states quite clearly that we need the right to keep and bear arms since it supports the result of a general militia. In the USA, you're in the militia purely from being an adult citizen, but nobody well-regulates you since our government is pack of fearful statist shitbags. Switzerland has a more formal, but concomitantly more restricted militia. The Swiss militia is mandatory but limited; the Swiss government is an active "well regulator" of the militia. Hence, we have solid gun rights (keeping and bearing) from the age of majority until death; the Swiss have solid gun rights while in the militia.

Our Congress can't even pass a law setting up the same sort of militia program like the Swiss, to specifically restrict gun rights post-militia service, since again, that's not what the Second Amendment says. The S.A. says you have the gun rights to begin with, and militia formation can logically follow.

I think there is a big difference in how the purpose of militia is viewed in Switzerland compared to how it is viewed in the United States. In Switzerland the mindset behind the militia is that it is in place to protect the country and its government from outside invasion. The militia in Switzerland is not at odds with the government since it exists to protect the government militarily. Here In The United States many consider the purpose of the militia to be protection against our own government. The militia is viewed as something in opposition to the government, separate from the military, as if the Founding Fathers set things up so that we would be constantly on the verge of revolution. In Switzerland there is trust between the militia and government. Here in The States there is distrust between the militia and the government, and yet at one time the militia was the military for this country protecting our government.
I think what the 2nd Amendment calls a militia was originally a citizen army designed to protect the country and the government but things got interpreted differently along the way.
But, that's just me.

Your problem is you think Obama always speaks for every liberal.

He is your chosen representative


Maybe not, but they all LOVE him!

Of course we have a problem here. Remember when the Toledo State Hospital closed, and turned almost all the inmates loose? A ballbat, a knife or a gun, can't hurt ANYONE, without a perp on the other end!

"[W]hat do we do about this - legally purchased guns that are used in such crimes?"

Nothing against the gun or their gun owners; you're forbidden to do so, due to the Second Amendment.

But you could try making "gun-free zones" illegal. No public place or public-access place should be a gun-free zone. No, not even public schools or courts or government offices.

"i, and no liberals i know, want to abolish the 2nd amendment, take your guns, ban hand guns or any other such extremes."

You're lying. You Liberals always lie about that. And let me tell you how you enact your lie: You want to emplace (clearly unconstitutional) restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, until we end up not having that right in any meaningful sense. Liberals would ban gun ownership or handling anywhere where'd they perceive the public is at risk, by people they perceive as being a gun-using risk... which pretty much means "nearly everywhere" and "nearly everyone"

You're not fooling anyone anymore. That's why gun ownership is coming back so strongly. It's BLOWBACK from decades of watching you Liberals try backdoor routes of taking our gun rights away.

Now we gun owners are militant. You deserve this sort of response. And you can't do a fucking thing about it, due to:

1793 Second Amendment
2008 DC v Heller
2010 MacDonald v Chicago

You had your chance to prove that Liberals believed in gun rights, and you failed catastrophically. The catastrophe is you watching fellow Liberals get slaughtered in their "gun-free zones" like cattle, and there's nothing you can or will do about it. You tried to come for our guns, now we're coming for your peace of mind, and we'll win..

Besides, who in their right mind would make themselves defenseless with the lunatics running around loose like they are?

About 4 years ago Oregon passed a law that prevented schools from banning firearms. This recent shooting in Oregon was not in a "gun free zone".

The school's policy is it is a gun free zone.


That meant that the student would have been provided a copy of the policy as a part of their matriculation. Do you think they also told students about the law as well? I seriously doubt it.

Of note from my citation: "The Oregon Court of Appeals ruled in September that the board did not have authority to regulate guns through the use of an administrative rule. But the court also said the board has broad control over its property. So the board turned to the policy to keep guns off its campuses."


If you had asked a Liberal a week before the Umpqua shooting, if the campus of a community college in Oregon state was a "gun free zone" they would have enthusiastically answered in the affirmative, crowing that such a zone was necessary in securing public safety.

Post-shooting, once the public narrative started to turn against the gun free zones by clearly identifying them as the problem, the Liberals turned 180 degrees in a phenomenal display of cognitive flexibility (i.e. dishonesty) and are now claiming that the campus wasn't a gun free zone at all.

Liberals are all about identifying inconvenient truths and then slathering them with propaganda like a grandma putting butter on noodles.

"But you could try making "gun-free zones" illegal. No public place or public-access place should be a gun-free zone. No, not even public schools or courts or government offices."

That's essentially what they did in Oregon.

"Did"? I beg to differ:


"We are often asked where persons with Oregon concealed handgun licenses MAY NOT have their firearms, You would think this would be an easy question to answer, after all the law is pretty clear isn’t it? Well yes it is. The problem is getting anyone to obey it."

Note specifically how they discuss how officials have taken the tack that yes, you have the right to carry concealed on the premises, but just the same they have the authority to remove you from the premises for "trespassing" just on their say-so.

There are other examples, but in summary, it's how the author implied: The problem in Oregon is getting the anti-gun zealots to obey Oregon law. And that sort of stuff is still happening here in Ohio... take a gander around at stores and shops and you'll still find old "don't bring a gun" signs up with obsolete Ohio Revised Code citations on them, (illegally) giving you the impression that by bringing a gun into such premises, you're committing a crime. (You aren't. The Supreme Court of Ohio struck down that particular citation. About all the premises owner can do is demand that you leave on the basis of him not liking your concealed or open carry of a firearm, and if you don't leave after that, the police can remove you, even charge you with trespassing. Sound familiar yet?)

Prove you're not a Liberal douchebag... tell me which racial minority is responsible for HALF of the violent crime in the nation.

After all, you wanted to identify PROBLEMS, right? So identify some.

Tell me the racial minority that White America enslaved for over 300 years and carried out unspeakable acts of violence and rape. Also tell me what racial minority suffered the most at the hands of White America for the last 150 years after the Civil War the same type of violence and rape.. Tell me what racial minority gets hurt the most, such as waiting for a cab to go to a tennis tournament, waiting for a ride while blind, cavity searched for running a stop sign, drug down a country road with a rope around your neck just because you were walking alone, shot ten times in the back for fleeing a traffic stop, burning down a whole community because they patronize their own businesses, burning down a whole town because a White woman lied about her infidelity with a White man, shot 25 times at the front door of your own house because someone mistook a bottle of soda for a gun, shot ten times while paralyzed and sitting in a wheel chair. And, lets not forget that walking home eating skittles and drinking a soft drink is probable cause to be hunted down like an animal and killed.

Should I say more?

Yes you should--you forgot to add the body cavity search!

Sorry but the wheelchair shooting was ENTIRELY justified. He was told multiple times by police with guns drawn to put his hands up, he didn't. He reached for the weapon in his wasteland.

It's called suicide by cop.


That happens sometimes.

You obviously didn't see the video and listen to the police commands. They commanded that he drop the weapon and put his hands up. When he reached for the gun to drop it as they requested they shot him ten times. I didn't see the man point the gun at anyone, Did you?

Nice try. I saw the video. If you were so sure of it you'd post the unedited version here. But you didn't.

The fact is the 40sec before they shoot him the four officers give ONE command "Put your hands up!" He never complies and reaches for his gun RIGHT before they shoot him. That is what is called a clean kill. The cops will be exonerated and deserve a public service commendation.


Liberals are now so desperate for power and relevance, that they're once again cutting their own political throats by demonizing police. Police are among the last strong unionized workforces in the nation.

Police behavior across the nation largely won't change from Liberal attacks on their procedures, much like no "stand your ground" law was overturned in the aftermath of the Zimmerman-Martin case.

Besides being a buffoon, MikeyA, you must be blind and deaf. You have proven the point again. Those who think they are entitled to write history as the victors, have to contend with videos. And by the way, the cops may be exonerated because Black Lives don't matter.

I notice you take the time to insult me yet don't refute anything I say.

I don't write history. In this case the video did. All I did was repeat the facts of the video.


These are not insults. I presented statements of facts based on the content of your posts.

Let's see shall we.

"Besides being a buffoonOpinion and insult, MikeyA, you must be blind and deafNeither so not a fact. You have proven the point again.I proved nothing except you cannot debate facts Those who think they are entitled to write history as the victors, you didn't challenge the video because you know I posted correctly about it having observed it, I didn't write history the video did. have to contend with videos.The video shows EXACTLY what I said, disagree? Tell me with what And by the way, the cops may be exonerated because Black Lives don't matter.No, again they won't even go to trial. Any reasonable person will see they gave him more than enough time to comply and he never did. They exercised restraint and the video proves it. You're tacitly admitting by this statement that I'm right.


Slavery has been over for 150 years. Nobody alive remembers slavery. Nobody alive today has suffered from slavery either.

I notice the you DIDN'T answer the question of which racial minority is responsible for HALF of the violent crime in the nation. Can't you perform a simple lookup of FBI crime statistics? Or is that "acting too White" for you?

Slavery still does exist. It's called the American Prison system. If a White person commits armed robbery he will probably get a year in jail. If an African American gets caught with a joint he'll get seven years.

No, slavery does NOT exist, you wacked out mental retard.

The prison system is just the prison system. If you're a violent law breaker you're almost certain to end up in that system. And Blacks are violent law breakers disproportionately more than Whites. By the time a Black man dies today, he has a 1/4 to 1/3 chance of having spent at least one period in the prison system.

If you have evidence that for the same crimes committed by the people with similar prior convictions, there are results of radically different sentencing that favors Whites, then post evidence of that assertion. But you won't, since there's no such evidence. You're just pissed off that Blacks end up paying for their crimes. We put down mad dogs, too, by the same reasoning.

Either act civilized (which is sadly quite a task for the Black population) or get put in prison or shot to death by police. There's no other option. You're not going to be given some sort of farcical permission to act like baboons on our streets.


No we've had prisons and a penal system since the inception of this country. It punishes those of all races equally under the law.

That Blacks are more represented is due to factors of the dissolve of the Black family and the acceptance of violence within the Black Community.


I truly enjoy reading the posts by you and GZ. Great material for my upcoming book.


When the publisher releases it, you will know.

Can I get an advanced copy?

Can I get an advanced copy?

Good. You have my permission to use my screen name and perform limited quoting of what I've said here, as permitted by laws protecting literary citations. I want you to get my message out. It only serves my purposes.

As for the title of your book, I suggest:

"Blowback: The Failure of Decades of Militant Liberalism"

Again how riveting. "Anonymous guy on the Internet said this."


is also an immigrant from the UK.

Has anyone else noticed when a driver runs over someone, we hear right away what their blood alcohol level is, and with a shooter, absolutely NOTHING about what their tox screen shows?

It's probably because the driver tends to survive, and the shooter tends to not survive.

Doubt it'll get published. Works of non-fiction require citations. ZC doesn't want to do readers work for them.


Hardy, Har, Har. I already have an agreement to finish the book. After reading the Treatment and Draft the publishing house has already given me an advance. BTW, this will be my third book and the publisher will be intrigued with the additional information about the world's greatest buffoon and Mr. Empty Glass. Of course, the names will be changed to protect the guilty.

If you quote me without attribution, I will seek legal redress.

My sincere congratulations on your upcoming publication. That's quite an accomplishment.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

How do I get to read your other books? Library?

Oh, anyone can get published. A vanity publisher would be glad to take your money to print and distribute your total crap of a book. Zeyad's real problem is that if he puts his real name on it, and we find a copy of that book, then we'd know his real name. Then we'd find out he's some Black pastor or long-time city employee or something equally lame and Socialist.

Wrong on all counts, GZ. Starting to get paranoid? I'm closer than you think. There was a poster who I used to see every week and he had no clue that I was was one of his biggest critics. I was always nice to him and very respectful. I'd do the same for you. Treat you nice and respectful. BTW my publisher paid me an advance. That's not a vanity publisher. .In the book there is a character named, "The Empty Thimble."

I find it difficult to believe that your "publisher" paid you "in advance" since you're so stunningly unable to construct the most basic logical structures. But whatever.

Are you writing a children's book? That sounds about your speed. You and Dale should get together on one of those. Indoctrinating children is part of his skillset.

Coming so to the fiction stories... A story about a man discriminated against by "White America" but of course no verifiable details just "a guy known to the author" who works "at a company in NW Ohio".

Sounds like a riveting read doesn't it! LOL


For those people who can't read well, hopefully it will also be on tape.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.