Thread: 26 people killed in shooting at Texas church

jszfunk - 11/6/2017 at 12:33 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/05/us/texas-church-shooting/index.html


robslob - 11/6/2017 at 12:58 PM

Just exactly when does this argument start to get tired?

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/trump-calls-texas-church-shooting-act-evil-005506 561--abc-news-topstories.html
"Mental health is your problem here. This was a very, based on preliminary reports, a very deranged individual, a lot of problems over a long period of time. We have a lot of mental health problems in our country, as do other countries. But this isn't a guns situation," President Trump said of the First Baptist Church shooting during a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.



[Edited on 11/6/2017 by robslob]


emr - 11/6/2017 at 01:23 PM

1 - There is no reason in the world for any civilian to own an automatic weapon. Period; case closed.

2 - It is a mental health and a gun issue. Did someone who was court-martialed and imprisoned for battery against his wife and child obtain weapons legally?

3 - From both a gun and an immigration standpoint: Yes, this guy was eventually dishonorably discharged. But if the US military can't vette someone how can we trust our government to vette either of the above?


2112 - 11/6/2017 at 01:33 PM

quote:
Just exactly when does this argument start to get tired?

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/trump-calls-texas-church-shooting-act-evil-005506 561--abc-news-topstories.html
"Mental health is your problem here. This was a very, based on preliminary reports, a very deranged individual, a lot of problems over a long period of time. We have a lot of mental health problems in our country, as do other countries. But this isn't a guns situation," President Trump said of the First Baptist Church shooting during a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.




Well then Mr. Trump and fellow Republicans in Congress, then why did you pass and sign a bill making it easier for mentally ill individuals to be able to buy guns. You must be proud!


2112 - 11/6/2017 at 01:35 PM

Time to break out the handy "Mass shooting in US checklist":

1. Send thoughts & prayers but not actually do anything useful *check
2. Argue over semantics of the term "assault rifle" *check
3. Argue over semantics of the term "terrorist" - if Muslim use it, if Christian/white use term "lone wolf" "mentally ill" "troubled past" *check
4. Congress does nothing but NRA increases donations just in case *check
5. Wait for next one, rinse,repeat *check

[Edited on 11/6/2017 by 2112]


nebish - 11/6/2017 at 04:51 PM

Every week now it is something.

I've always believed the problem is the people behind these acts and not the weapons or means they use.

But if we can't address or fix the people problem, alright I'll sit down with you all, let's address the weapons and means side of it.

My question is, if we overhaul the purchase and ownership system for firearms in this country in a way that would be appropriate and reasonable to those calling for gun greater restrictions, my question is what do we do when these events continue to happen in spite of the efforts? What then?

I'm not suggesting that because I think it will do little that we shouldn't do anything. Not my position. I'm coming to the table to find agreement and change on the issue. Let's work. So if this work fails to create the changes we seek then what? It is still a defective person problem - so what is the course of action for that?


2112 - 11/6/2017 at 06:22 PM

quote:
Every week now it is something.

I've always believed the problem is the people behind these acts and not the weapons or means they use.

But if we can't address or fix the people problem, alright I'll sit down with you all, let's address the weapons and means side of it.

My question is, if we overhaul the purchase and ownership system for firearms in this country in a way that would be appropriate and reasonable to those calling for gun greater restrictions, my question is what do we do when these events continue to happen in spite of the efforts? What then?

I'm not suggesting that because I think it will do little that we shouldn't do anything. Not my position. I'm coming to the table to find agreement and change on the issue. Let's work. So if this work fails to create the changes we seek then what? It is still a defective person problem - so what is the course of action for that?


It's still going to happen for quite a while due to the number of weapons already out there. However, since people are still buying some of these rediculous weapons, some people who want them won't get them, so it's a start.

The people problem and weapon problem aren't exclusive, but we are going in the wrong direction. Congress passed a law and Trump signed it earlier this year making it easier for people with mental health issues to buy a gun. This is pure insanity.


cyclone88 - 11/6/2017 at 06:31 PM

quote:
Time to break out the handy "Mass shooting in US checklist":

1. Send thoughts & prayers but not actually do anything useful *check
2. Argue over semantics of the term "assault rifle" *check
3. Argue over semantics of the term "terrorist" - if Muslim use it, if Christian/white use term "lone wolf" "mentally ill" "troubled past" *check
4. Congress does nothing but NRA increases donations just in case *check
5. Wait for next one, rinse,repeat *check


I have to agree that is the SOP, although I'd like to change the title to Mass Murder in the US Checklist.


BrerRabbit - 11/6/2017 at 07:11 PM

quote:
I'd like to change the title to Mass Murder in the US Checklist.


Gotta agree. It is creepy how our terminology gradually reflects an acceptance of these events as the new normal.


LeglizHemp - 11/6/2017 at 08:39 PM

People in Australia ask me "When is USA going to do something about gun violence?" I just shake my head and say never, it's a form of entertainment.


BoytonBrother - 11/6/2017 at 08:56 PM

quote:
So if this work fails to create the changes we seek then what? It is still a defective person problem - so what is the course of action for that?


While itís true that it was beyond irresponsible and stupid to ever allow civilians to purchase military assault rifles, I donít think guns and mental illness are the only issues. Yes, they both play a role, but I donít think there has been any real change in these two areas since the 90s, when columbine happened. Whatís changed since then is technology and methods of communication. If you rewind a few decades, the public had limited tv choices, radio, newspapers, and magazines. There wasnít enough airtime for every horror story out there, or to stage hostile pundit debates on 24-hour news networks. We only heard the horror stories and political fighting if we sought it, and had to plan our day around the newsí scheduled airtime. Disturbed ticking time bombs were not poked with sticks on a daily basis. Now, with smart phones and social media, every horror story from around the world gets funneled into our minds all day, along with 140 character diatribes that attack each other to fuel it even more. the disturbed ticking time bombs are poked with sticks every day. Tech has outpaced humanís mental evolution. On top of this, our free capitalist society encourages entrepreneurs to profit from these dangers.....more news sites and new social media apps are built as time goes on. As long as there are profits to be made from good ratings, it wonít change.

[Edited on 11/6/2017 by BoytonBrother]


2112 - 11/6/2017 at 11:03 PM

quote:
quote:
So if this work fails to create the changes we seek then what? It is still a defective person problem - so what is the course of action for that?


While itís true that it was beyond irresponsible and stupid to ever allow civilians to purchase military assault rifles, I donít think guns and mental illness are the only issues. Yes, they both play a role, but I donít think there has been any real change in these two areas since the 90s, when columbine happened. Whatís changed since then is technology and methods of communication. If you rewind a few decades, the public had limited tv choices, radio, newspapers, and magazines. There wasnít enough airtime for every horror story out there, or to stage hostile pundit debates on 24-hour news networks. We only heard the horror stories and political fighting if we sought it, and had to plan our day around the newsí scheduled airtime. Disturbed ticking time bombs were not poked with sticks on a daily basis. Now, with smart phones and social media, every horror story from around the world gets funneled into our minds all day, along with 140 character diatribes that attack each other to fuel it even more. the disturbed ticking time bombs are poked with sticks every day. Tech has outpaced humanís mental evolution. On top of this, our free capitalist society encourages entrepreneurs to profit from these dangers.....more news sites and new social media apps are built as time goes on. As long as there are profits to be made from good ratings, it wonít change.

[Edited on 11/6/2017 by BoytonBrother]



I don't know. It seems like the prefered gun used in all of these mass shootings was illegal between 1994 and 2004. Seems like mass shootings have increased since then.


nebish - 11/6/2017 at 11:04 PM

quote:
It's still going to happen for quite a while due to the number of weapons already out there. However, since people are still buying some of these rediculous weapons, some people who want them won't get them, so it's a start.

The people problem and weapon problem aren't exclusive, but we are going in the wrong direction. Congress passed a law and Trump signed it earlier this year making it easier for people with mental health issues to buy a gun. This is pure insanity.


We should remember that ACLU also didn't support the restrictions, aligning them with the 'right' and against the 'left' on this issue. So it isn't as cut and dry as it has been made out to be. It's a due process issue. Now, you or anyone could play the 'gun makers want more customers' angle, but hopefully you or any of those people also understand there was a legal and antidiscrimination matter at hand as well. It isn't that I or Trump or the ACLU want individuals with metal disabilities to have access to firearms, it is the process of how we go about determining who to apply the restrictions to and if they have any recourse to challenge such a ruling against them.

The NRA is the #1 opposition to just about any and all new restrictions and laws. So it has to start among their supporters to trickle up to the organization which can allow members of Congress to act more freely without fear of repressions. This is where people like myself and others can start. I have 4 close friends who have atleast 1 AR15 style rifles and are strong gun rights supporters. As I often do in here on our forum and in other political conversation I have with people I know, I tend to play devil's advocate and present reasonable arguments to the contrary of what the person I'm talking with believes, in this case why the ownership and purchase of their firearms could or should be different.

Some people are too entrenched, too partisan, too closed minded to listen to any different point of view no matter what. But I think most people when engaged in topics in a constructive way will listen to opposing views that leaves an impression on them.

From there it can impact pro-gun R and D representatives in Congress to being open for some new laws or restrictions.

Hoping that Democrats take Congress and the White House and hoping that then they can do what is necessary to address the matter isn't going to work either. Any time one side forces something on everyone it is met with strong resistance and outrage. It has to be bipartisan.

The members of Congress and the NRA need to hear it from their constituents and members to soften or change positions.

So that is what I mean when I say I'm willing to come to the table and work for change. I'm not just going to blindly vote for a Democrat because they more often than not want more gun regs, just like I don't blindly vote for a Republican because they tend to be a certain way on some other issue. We have to work towards changing the mentality within our friends, family, society and representatives in Washington.

Still, even the strongest laws can only have an impact to a certain point. Anything illegal and strongly regulated can still be obtained via illegal means circumventing the law and people motivated to carry out such horrendous and sickening acts of violence and murder will seek whatever means necessary. That doesn't mean nothing should be done, it just needs to be acknowledged I think that it may not have quite the desired effect. It might have partially the desired effect, a reduction in frequency or severity could be achieved so the attempt for change should be made.

This goes for any conservative here or pro-gun member. Challenge yourself privately on what you think needs done. If you aren't willing to concede some convenience and accept more responsibility and requirements as part of your purchase and ownership for your firearms then I guess that means you are part of the problem tearing this country apart.

Then we need to address the problem we have with people wanting to do these things, which is much much harder than trying to limit access to the means or tools these sick **** s use to carryout their violence and death.


nebish - 11/6/2017 at 11:08 PM

quote:
quote:
So if this work fails to create the changes we seek then what? It is still a defective person problem - so what is the course of action for that?


While itís true that it was beyond irresponsible and stupid to ever allow civilians to purchase military assault rifles, I donít think guns and mental illness are the only issues. Yes, they both play a role, but I donít think there has been any real change in these two areas since the 90s, when columbine happened. Whatís changed since then is technology and methods of communication. If you rewind a few decades, the public had limited tv choices, radio, newspapers, and magazines. There wasnít enough airtime for every horror story out there, or to stage hostile pundit debates on 24-hour news networks. We only heard the horror stories and political fighting if we sought it, and had to plan our day around the newsí scheduled airtime. Disturbed ticking time bombs were not poked with sticks on a daily basis. Now, with smart phones and social media, every horror story from around the world gets funneled into our minds all day, along with 140 character diatribes that attack each other to fuel it even more. the disturbed ticking time bombs are poked with sticks every day. Tech has outpaced humanís mental evolution. On top of this, our free capitalist society encourages entrepreneurs to profit from these dangers.....more news sites and new social media apps are built as time goes on. As long as there are profits to be made from good ratings, it wonít change.

[Edited on 11/6/2017 by BoytonBrother]


I think this is a good point.

The people who for some reason want to carry out these events can be motivated to do so by so many more avenues now than before. While I used to think movies planted seeds within sick people that could grow and blossom in acts of violence that may otherwise might've remain suppressed. Now with so many details and graphic photos and everything on the internet and how people communicate, people that have a predisposition towards murderous acts like we are talking get further fueled to carry it out.


BIGV - 11/6/2017 at 11:30 PM

quote:
people that have a predisposition towards murderous acts like we are talking get further fueled to carry it out.


Blame the internet, guns & movies.....

"predisposition"... you mean balls to the walls NUTS. What sane person commits a terrible act like this? Plain and simple, this is a mental health issue.

Question: Do the idiots who kill people with trucks and bombs do so because they can not acquire a gun?


cyclone88 - 11/6/2017 at 11:54 PM

Mental illness is a lazy answer.

This guy turned out to have a history of domestic abuse & was literally gunning for his in-laws. Las Vegas - financial problems. Charleston - angry young man. Several revenge murders at former workplaces. Columbine was 2 high school misfits.

People behind bars for murder aren't all mentally ill. There's anger and hate and vengeance - none of which are classified in the DSM V.




Muleman1994 - 11/7/2017 at 12:08 AM

We are still waiting for the left-wing ďgun controlĒ screamers to post a proposed law that they think would have prevented these murders.

Just like after Las Vegas the Democrats were all calling for a ban on the bump-stock accessory made available to the public by Obamaís ATF. Not one Democrat has offered any legislation to stop the sale of the bump-stock.

I would like to read what law the left thinks would have prevented the Texas man from getting a weapon.

In a pinch all he had to do was go to the ghetto of any city run by Democrats and he could have acquired all the fully automatic weapons he wanted.


jkeller - 11/7/2017 at 12:14 AM

quote:
Mental illness is a lazy answer.

This guy turned out to have a history of domestic abuse & was literally gunning for his in-laws. Las Vegas - financial problems. Charleston - angry young man. Several revenge murders at former workplaces. Columbine was 2 high school misfits.

People behind bars for murder aren't all mentally ill. There's anger and hate and vengeance - none of which are classified in the DSM V.






Every country in the world has people with mental illness. Only this country has so many mass killings. It is not a mental health issue.

Besides that, the GOP Congress passed a law that allows people with mental illness to buy guns. Trump signed it. The latest health care reform failure would have greatly reduced the coverage of mental illness. For any conservative to cry "it isn't guns, it is mental illness" is just a fraud. It's guns and the easy access to them by people both mentally stable and mentally ill.


Bhawk - 11/7/2017 at 12:49 AM

Nothing will change. Not yesterday, today, tomorrow or ever.


2112 - 11/7/2017 at 12:56 AM

quote:
Nothing will change. Not yesterday, today, tomorrow or ever.


True. Americans love their guns more than life itself, literally.


Muleman1994 - 11/7/2017 at 01:19 AM

quote:
quote:
Mental illness is a lazy answer.

This guy turned out to have a history of domestic abuse & was literally gunning for his in-laws. Las Vegas - financial problems. Charleston - angry young man. Several revenge murders at former workplaces. Columbine was 2 high school misfits.

People behind bars for murder aren't all mentally ill. There's anger and hate and vengeance - none of which are classified in the DSM V.






Every country in the world has people with mental illness. Only this country has so many mass killings. It is not a mental health issue.

Besides that, the GOP Congress passed a law that allows people with mental illness to buy guns. Trump signed it. The latest health care reform failure would have greatly reduced the coverage of mental illness. For any conservative to cry "it isn't guns, it is mental illness" is just a fraud. It's guns and the easy access to them by people both mentally stable and mentally ill.



Your " the GOP Congress passed a law that allows people with mental illness to buy guns" is a flat out lie.
But since you believe it, post that law right here.


Muleman1994 - 11/7/2017 at 01:22 AM

The Air Force never reported, as they are required to by law, Kelleyís dishonorable discharge and related pertinent details to The FBI and therefore the shooters ineligibility to buy a gun was never entered into the relevant databases.

That failure occurred during the Obama administration.


BoytonBrother - 11/7/2017 at 02:05 AM

quote:
"predisposition"... you mean balls to the walls NUTS. What sane person commits a terrible act like this? Plain and simple, this is a mental health issue.


Iím with you, and if they want to buy a trove of pistols with unlimited ammo, Iím all for it. Thatís America baby! Price of freedom. Obama ainít taking my guns, no sir.

[Edited on 11/7/2017 by BoytonBrother]


Muleman1994 - 11/7/2017 at 02:43 AM

Air Force Error Allowed Texas Gunman to Buy Weapons

The New York Times

By DAVID MONTGOMERY, RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. and JOSE A. DELREAL

SUTHERLAND SPRINGS, Tex. ó

A day after a gunman massacred parishioners in a small Texas church, the Air Force admitted on Monday that it had failed to enter the manís domestic violence court-martial into a federal database in 2016 that could have blocked him from buying the rifle he used to kill 26 people.

The conviction of the gunman, Devin P. Kelley, for domestic assault on his wife and infant stepson ó he had cracked the childís skull ó should have stopped Mr. Kelley from legally purchasing the military-style rifle and three other guns he bought in the last four years. But that information was never entered by the Air Force into the federal database for background checks on gun purchasers, the service said.

ďThe Air Force has launched a review of how the service handled the criminal records of former Airman Devin P. Kelley following his 2012 domestic violence conviction,Ē the Air Force said in a statement. ďFederal law prohibited him from buying or possessing firearms after this conviction.Ē
The statement said that Heather Wilson, the Air Force secretary, and Gen. David Goldfein, the Air Force chief of staff, had ordered the Air Force inspector general to work with the Pentagonís inspector general to ďconduct a complete review of the Kelley case and relevant policies and procedures.Ē

The Air Force also said that it was looking into whether other convictions had been improperly left unreported. ďThe service will also conduct a comprehensive review of Air Force databases to ensure records in other cases have been reported correctly,Ē the statement said.

New details of the killings also emerged on Monday, including a possible motive. Local law enforcement officials said that Mr. Kelley may have been driven by anger toward his estranged wifeís family, the final chapter in a life full of domestic rage. In addition to his court-martial, in which his previous wife was the victim, he had been investigated on a rape complaint, though he was not charged and his relationship to the victim was unclear.

His current wifeís mother attended First Baptist Church, the target of Mr. Kelleyís rage on Sunday. ďThe suspectís mother-in-law attended this church,Ē Freeman Martin, a spokesman for the Texas Department of Public Safety, said during a news conference Monday morning. ďWe know that he had made threatening texts and we canít go into detail into that domestic situation that is continuing to be vetted and thoroughly investigated.Ē

ďThis was not racially motivated, it wasnít over religious beliefs, it was a domestic situation going on,Ē Mr. Martin added.

Mr. Kelleyís wife and her parents were not at the church on Sunday, the authorities said, but a relative of his wifeís grandmother posted on Facebook that the grandmother was there and had been killed.

Mr. Kelley, who was dressed in all black and wore a skull-face mask, left the church, engaged in a gunfight with a bystander outside, and then led the bystander and another man in a dramatic car chase that ended with Mr. Kelley dead behind the wheel. He had shot himself, investigators said, though it was not yet clear whether that bullet had caused his death.



BrerRabbit - 11/7/2017 at 02:45 AM

quote:
The Air Force never reported, as they are required to by law, Kelleyís dishonorable discharge and related pertinent details to The FBI and therefore the shooters ineligibility to buy a gun was never entered into the relevant databases.

That failure occurred during the Obama administration.


Yep. Obama zapped the Air Force with his SNAFU Ray. Then the USAF morphed into an inefficient outfit for those eight years, and magically changed back into a well-oiled machine with a Republican in the White House.




BoytonBrother - 11/7/2017 at 03:10 AM

All these dumb liberal fools focusing on the present instead of the past. LOL, idiots.


BrerRabbit - 11/7/2017 at 03:11 AM

Obama


nebish - 11/7/2017 at 05:47 AM

quote:
Nothing will change. Not yesterday, today, tomorrow or ever.


I knew that if you posted you would say exactly that.

So then, why bother talking/posting about it? Why waste your time, why waste my time, why everyone else waste time? Why do we come to the internet to read and comment about issues?


BIGV - 11/7/2017 at 06:15 AM

quote:
It is not a mental health issue.


Yeah, these guys are all as as sane as the next guy. I beg to differ, it is a mental health issue.


BoytonBrother - 11/7/2017 at 02:03 PM

It is a mental health issue for sure. So letís leave a wide open path for them to purchase automatic weapons!


Muleman1994 - 11/7/2017 at 02:53 PM

quote:
Obama


Exactly right, Obama.

The Air Force failed to meets its responsibility on this during the Obama error.

The damage done to our country under Obama will be felt for years and it will take years to correct Obama's many failures.
Fortunately we now have a President who acts on behalf of The People and is actively working to reverse the failures of the last eight years.


BrerRabbit - 11/7/2017 at 05:50 PM

Obama


KCJimmy - 11/7/2017 at 06:03 PM

quote:
Obama was the worst president these 57 states have ever had


jkeller - 11/7/2017 at 06:13 PM

quote:
quote:
It is not a mental health issue.


Yeah, these guys are all as as sane as the next guy. I beg to differ, it is a mental health issue.


Every country in the world has people with mental health issues. Only this country has mass shootings. It is not a mental health issue. It is an easy access to guns issue.


KCJimmy - 11/7/2017 at 06:27 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
It is not a mental health issue.


Yeah, these guys are all as as sane as the next guy. I beg to differ, it is a mental health issue.


Every country in the world has people with mental health issues. Only this country has mass shootings. It is not a mental health issue. It is an easy access to guns issue.
The U.S.A. has always allowed citizens to bear arms. There is zero indication that this will change. There are countries with far more strict gun laws. There are many that don't allow guns at all. If this issue is that important to you... perhaps you could go to one of those countries? Then you would not feel the need to fight this loosing battle. You could sit OVER THERE and criticize us.


jkeller - 11/7/2017 at 06:56 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
It is not a mental health issue.


Yeah, these guys are all as as sane as the next guy. I beg to differ, it is a mental health issue.


Every country in the world has people with mental health issues. Only this country has mass shootings. It is not a mental health issue. It is an easy access to guns issue.
The U.S.A. has always allowed citizens to bear arms. There is zero indication that this will change. There are countries with far more strict gun laws. There are many that don't allow guns at all. If this issue is that important to you... perhaps you could go to one of those countries? Then you would not feel the need to fight this loosing battle. You could sit OVER THERE and criticize us.


What did I criticize? I gave my opinion on why I don't feel it is a mental health issue. At no point did I say to take any guns away from everyone. Try reading and comprehending what I say. If you can't do that, you are cordially invited to STFU. Have a nice day.


pops42 - 11/7/2017 at 06:59 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
It is not a mental health issue.


Yeah, these guys are all as as sane as the next guy. I beg to differ, it is a mental health issue.


Every country in the world has people with mental health issues. Only this country has mass shootings. It is not a mental health issue. It is an easy access to guns issue.
The U.S.A. has always allowed citizens to bear arms. There is zero indication that this will change. There are countries with far more strict gun laws. There are many that don't allow guns at all. If this issue is that important to you... perhaps you could go to one of those countries? Then you would not feel the need to fight this loosing battle. You could sit OVER THERE and criticize us.
The texas church killer beat his wife, and fractured his step-sons skull while in the air force [he received a court martial]. he was still allowed to buy guns.

[Edited on 11/7/2017 by pops42]


BoytonBrother - 11/7/2017 at 07:16 PM

quote:
The U.S.A. has always allowed citizens to bear arms. There is zero indication that this will change. There are countries with far more strict gun laws. There are many that don't allow guns at all. If this issue is that important to you... perhaps you could go to one of those countries? Then you would not feel the need to fight this loosing battle. You could sit OVER THERE and criticize us.


Amen! Couldnít have said it better myself. Thatís right jkeller, if you have a problem with the mentally ill purchasing automatic weapons leading to monthly mass murders, then the U.S. just ainít for you! Real men like me donít mind a lil bit of mass murder on a regular basis. Price of freedom.


KCJimmy - 11/7/2017 at 08:24 PM

You really are melting aren't you?


Muleman1994 - 11/7/2017 at 08:26 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
It is not a mental health issue.


Yeah, these guys are all as as sane as the next guy. I beg to differ, it is a mental health issue.


Every country in the world has people with mental health issues. Only this country has mass shootings. It is not a mental health issue. It is an easy access to guns issue.
The U.S.A. has always allowed citizens to bear arms. There is zero indication that this will change. There are countries with far more strict gun laws. There are many that don't allow guns at all. If this issue is that important to you... perhaps you could go to one of those countries? Then you would not feel the need to fight this loosing battle. You could sit OVER THERE and criticize us.
The texas church killer beat his wife, and fractured his step-sons skull while in the air force [he received a court martial]. he was still allowed to buy guns.

[Edited on 11/7/2017 by pops42]


" he was still allowed to buy guns" because the Air Force during the Obama administration failed to notify the FBI hence his crimes were never entered into the criminal background system.

Your boy Obama and his administration failed and people were murdered.


LeglizHemp - 11/7/2017 at 08:32 PM

Entertainment


KCJimmy - 11/7/2017 at 08:34 PM

quote:
Entertainment
...is watching snowflakes melt.


BrerRabbit - 11/7/2017 at 08:43 PM

Obama


Muleman1994 - 11/7/2017 at 08:50 PM

quote:
Obama


Another empty post.
Are you simply incapable of forming an opinion or offering a solution?


KCJimmy - 11/7/2017 at 08:50 PM

Snowflake


BrerRabbit - 11/7/2017 at 09:52 PM

I'm with Pat Robertson on this one, and I can't stand him. This was another guy whacked on SSRI. Common element in many of these off the wall "senseless" events. Mandatory confiscation of all weapons, down to slingshots squirt guns and zippos upon prescrip of psych meds would take a big bite out of this problem.



[Edited on 11/7/2017 by BrerRabbit]


jkeller - 11/7/2017 at 10:02 PM

quote:
Snowflake


Arenít you the guy who was whining about being called named?


pops42 - 11/7/2017 at 11:18 PM

quote:
quote:
Obama was the worst president these 57 states have ever had

The facts say otherwise.


pops42 - 11/7/2017 at 11:19 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
It is not a mental health issue.


Yeah, these guys are all as as sane as the next guy. I beg to differ, it is a mental health issue.


Every country in the world has people with mental health issues. Only this country has mass shootings. It is not a mental health issue. It is an easy access to guns issue.
The U.S.A. has always allowed citizens to bear arms. There is zero indication that this will change. There are countries with far more strict gun laws. There are many that don't allow guns at all. If this issue is that important to you... perhaps you could go to one of those countries? Then you would not feel the need to fight this loosing battle. You could sit OVER THERE and criticize us.
The texas church killer beat his wife, and fractured his step-sons skull while in the air force [he received a court martial]. he was still allowed to buy guns.

[Edited on 11/7/2017 by pops42]


" he was still allowed to buy guns" because the Air Force during the Obama administration failed to notify the FBI hence his crimes were never entered into the criminal background system.

Your boy Obama and his administration failed and people were murdered.

The facts are absent, like your mental health.


BrerRabbit - 11/7/2017 at 11:45 PM

quote:
Obama and his administration failed and people were murdered.


Absurd.

Believe me, the SNAFU rate doesn't change from admin to admin - as a gummint wildland firefighter since the Reagan era I can attest. Most of the time we do alright, other times, not so great. Totally got asskicked this summer, lives lost, glaring mistakes were certainly made, and it had nothing to do with the Trump admin.

Blaming Obama and his administration for a clerical error that occurred while he was president is patently ridiculous, and undercuts the merit of your statements on any subject. Your overriding impulse to attack Obama, liberals, and "The Left" has robbed you of the ability to do more than parrot the same theme over and over, regardless of the issue.

You sir, have been hoisted by your own petard.


[Edited on 11/8/2017 by BrerRabbit]


KCJimmy - 11/8/2017 at 03:28 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Obama was the worst president these 57 states have ever had

The facts say otherwise.
Gotta BINGO! He was later informed that not only was he the worst president but it turns out he only went to 50 states while he was campaigning.


BIGV - 11/8/2017 at 03:39 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
It is not a mental health issue.


Yeah, these guys are all as as sane as the next guy. I beg to differ, it is a mental health issue.


Every country in the world has people with mental health issues. Only this country has mass shootings. It is not a mental health issue. It is an easy access to guns issue.
The U.S.A. has always allowed citizens to bear arms. There is zero indication that this will change. There are countries with far more strict gun laws. There are many that don't allow guns at all. If this issue is that important to you... perhaps you could go to one of those countries? Then you would not feel the need to fight this loosing battle. You could sit OVER THERE and criticize us.
The texas church killer beat his wife, and fractured his step-sons skull while in the air force [he received a court martial]. he was still allowed to buy guns.

[Edited on 11/7/2017 by pops42]


BIGV - 11/8/2017 at 03:44 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
It is not a mental health issue.


Yeah, these guys are all as as sane as the next guy. I beg to differ, it is a mental health issue.


Every country in the world has people with mental health issues. Only this country has mass shootings. It is not a mental health issue. It is an easy access to guns issue.
The U.S.A. has always allowed citizens to bear arms. There is zero indication that this will change. There are countries with far more strict gun laws. There are many that don't allow guns at all. If this issue is that important to you... perhaps you could go to one of those countries? Then you would not feel the need to fight this loosing battle. You could sit OVER THERE and criticize us.
The texas church killer beat his wife, and fractured his step-sons skull while in the air force [he received a court martial]. he was still allowed to buy guns


So do crazies like this moron who "won't be allowed to buy guns" just rent trucks instead?

He beat his wife and almost kills his step sons, but it's NOT a mental health issue!


jkeller - 11/8/2017 at 04:34 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
It is not a mental health issue.


Yeah, these guys are all as as sane as the next guy. I beg to differ, it is a mental health issue.


Every country in the world has people with mental health issues. Only this country has mass shootings. It is not a mental health issue. It is an easy access to guns issue.
The U.S.A. has always allowed citizens to bear arms. There is zero indication that this will change. There are countries with far more strict gun laws. There are many that don't allow guns at all. If this issue is that important to you... perhaps you could go to one of those countries? Then you would not feel the need to fight this loosing battle. You could sit OVER THERE and criticize us.
The texas church killer beat his wife, and fractured his step-sons skull while in the air force [he received a court martial]. he was still allowed to buy guns


So do crazies like this moron who "won't be allowed to buy guns" just rent trucks instead?

He beat his wife and almost kills his step sons, but it's NOT a mental health issue!


Death tolls:

Texas 26.

Las Vegas 58

NYC 6

Obviously guns and trucks produce the same amount of deaths.


KCJimmy - 11/8/2017 at 04:52 PM

quote:
Death tolls:

Texas 26.

Las Vegas 58

NYC 6

Obviously guns and trucks produce the same amount of deaths.
The people in New York are just as dead as the people in Vegas. If one of your loved ones were one of them you probably would feel differently about the diversity visa program and maybe have a little more respect for the ability of a crazy (or a terrorist) to do harm with something other than a gun.


2112 - 11/8/2017 at 05:10 PM

quote:
quote:
Death tolls:

Texas 26.

Las Vegas 58

NYC 6

Obviously guns and trucks produce the same amount of deaths.
The people in New York are just as dead as the people in Vegas. If one of your loved ones were one of them you probably would feel differently about the diversity visa program and maybe have a little more respect for the ability of a crazy (or a terrorist) to do harm with something other than a gun.


Had the terrorist in NY had a gun, there would have been many more deaths than there were. Come on, you have to admit that. Sure, crazy people can always find some other type of weapon, but a car, knife or single shot black powder riffle will not be as effective as an AR-15 in killing lots of people in just seconds. But hey, keep talking about banning trucks or knifes if you think it will help.


BoytonBrother - 11/8/2017 at 05:27 PM

quote:
The people in New York are just as dead as the people in Vegas


My point exactly. I mean, what does the number of fatalities have to do with anything? Whether itís 1 or 100, dead is dead, right?


Muleman1994 - 11/8/2017 at 05:29 PM

quote:
quote:
Obama and his administration failed and people were murdered.


Absurd.

Believe me, the SNAFU rate doesn't change from admin to admin - as a gummint wildland firefighter since the Reagan era I can attest. Most of the time we do alright, other times, not so great. Totally got asskicked this summer, lives lost, glaring mistakes were certainly made, and it had nothing to do with the Trump admin.

Blaming Obama and his administration for a clerical error that occurred while he was president is patently ridiculous, and undercuts the merit of your statements on any subject. Your overriding impulse to attack Obama, liberals, and "The Left" has robbed you of the ability to do more than parrot the same theme over and over, regardless of the issue.

You sir, have been hoisted by your own petard.


[Edited on 11/8/2017 by BrerRabbit]


Still running from the truth.
Not surprising.
Why hold the people actually responsible for their failures when you can divert to nonsense and obscure the issue.

Still waiting for you far-left extremist to post your proposed gun control legislation and explain to us all how that would have prevented the shooting in Texas.

What, no response again?
Typical.


jkeller - 11/8/2017 at 06:09 PM

quote:
quote:
Death tolls:

Texas 26.

Las Vegas 58

NYC 6

Obviously guns and trucks produce the same amount of deaths.
The people in New York are just as dead as the people in Vegas. If one of your loved ones were one of them you probably would feel differently about the diversity visa program and maybe have a little more respect for the ability of a crazy (or a terrorist) to do harm with something other than a gun.


You missed the point. Or maybe you were just conveniently obtuse to fit your own rhetoric.


KCJimmy - 11/8/2017 at 06:14 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Death tolls:

Texas 26.

Las Vegas 58

NYC 6

Obviously guns and trucks produce the same amount of deaths.
The people in New York are just as dead as the people in Vegas. If one of your loved ones were one of them you probably would feel differently about the diversity visa program and maybe have a little more respect for the ability of a crazy (or a terrorist) to do harm with something other than a gun.


You missed the point. Or maybe you were just conveniently obtuse to fit your own rhetoric.
I didn't miss anything. You are the one keeping score, not me. 2112 get's it maybe he could explain it to you.


BrerRabbit - 11/8/2017 at 06:15 PM

Ok, mule how about an opinion and solution idea from you? You demanded that from me, I posted some ideas you thought were dumb, but I offered an opinion and solution without bashing anyone.

Your turn.


BIGV - 11/8/2017 at 07:45 PM

quote:
quote:
Death tolls:

Texas 26.

Las Vegas 58

NYC 6

Obviously guns and trucks produce the same amount of deaths.


The people in New York are just as dead as the people in Vegas. If one of your loved ones were one of them you probably would feel differently about the diversity visa program and maybe have a little more respect for the ability of a crazy (or a terrorist) to do harm with something other than a gun.


Exactly. But it's not a Mental Health issue.


MartinD28 - 11/8/2017 at 07:52 PM

quote:
quote:
The people in New York are just as dead as the people in Vegas


My point exactly. I mean, what does the number of fatalities have to do with anything? Whether itís 1 or 100, dead is dead, right?


Have to agree with Boyton. Just throw quantification out the window to achieve equality to justify a premise. Works every time.


BoytonBrother - 11/8/2017 at 07:53 PM

Exactly. Itís about one thing and one thing only. Itís not a complex issue. It canít be about guns because itís about mental health. It canít be both, morons, duh.


KCJimmy - 11/8/2017 at 08:27 PM

It does seem to be more complicated for some than others.


BoytonBrother - 11/8/2017 at 08:42 PM

Can you believe those idiots who think itís a complex issue involving many factors. Such morons, lol!


Bhawk - 11/8/2017 at 08:43 PM

quote:
quote:
Nothing will change. Not yesterday, today, tomorrow or ever.


I knew that if you posted you would say exactly that.

So then, why bother talking/posting about it? Why waste your time, why waste my time, why everyone else waste time? Why do we come to the internet to read and comment about issues?


Interesting that of all the responses, my simple one upsets you the most. Why?


Jerry - 11/9/2017 at 02:26 AM

quote:
quote:
Mental illness is a lazy answer.

This guy turned out to have a history of domestic abuse & was literally gunning for his in-laws. Las Vegas - financial problems. Charleston - angry young man. Several revenge murders at former workplaces. Columbine was 2 high school misfits.

People behind bars for murder aren't all mentally ill. There's anger and hate and vengeance - none of which are classified in the DSM V.






Every country in the world has people with mental illness. Only this country has so many mass killings. It is not a mental health issue.

Besides that, the GOP Congress passed a law that allows people with mental illness to buy guns. Trump signed it. The latest health care reform failure would have greatly reduced the coverage of mental illness. For any conservative to cry "it isn't guns, it is mental illness" is just a fraud. It's guns and the easy access to them by people both mentally stable and mentally ill.


Wrong!!!!!!!!

They rolled back an Obama bill that added several hundred thousand Social Security recipients to a data base as being "mentally ill" without due process. None of the people added were adjudged to be mentally ill by a court of law. The were losing their rights to a half baked proposal. If you keep repeating that lie, then you're the one mentally ill.


Jerry - 11/9/2017 at 02:27 AM

quote:
It is a mental health issue for sure. So letís leave a wide open path for them to purchase automatic weapons!


Why would you propose that? Are you crazy?


Jerry - 11/9/2017 at 02:33 AM

quote:
I'm with Pat Robertson on this one, and I can't stand him. This was another guy whacked on SSRI. Common element in many of these off the wall "senseless" events. Mandatory confiscation of all weapons, down to slingshots squirt guns and zippos upon prescrip of psych meds would take a big bite out of this problem.



[Edited on 11/7/2017 by BrerRabbit]


If the Air Force had reported his conviction, prison sentence, escape from a mental institution, and his mental state, that would have been standard procedure.
The law has been on the books for years about domestic abuse and the prohibition of gun ownership.


2112 - 11/9/2017 at 02:43 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Mental illness is a lazy answer.

This guy turned out to have a history of domestic abuse & was literally gunning for his in-laws. Las Vegas - financial problems. Charleston - angry young man. Several revenge murders at former workplaces. Columbine was 2 high school misfits.

People behind bars for murder aren't all mentally ill. There's anger and hate and vengeance - none of which are classified in the DSM V.






Every country in the world has people with mental illness. Only this country has so many mass killings. It is not a mental health issue.

Besides that, the GOP Congress passed a law that allows people with mental illness to buy guns. Trump signed it. The latest health care reform failure would have greatly reduced the coverage of mental illness. For any conservative to cry "it isn't guns, it is mental illness" is just a fraud. It's guns and the easy access to them by people both mentally stable and mentally ill.


Wrong!!!!!!!!

They rolled back an Obama bill that added several hundred thousand Social Security recipients to a data base as being "mentally ill" without due process. None of the people added were adjudged to be mentally ill by a court of law. The were losing their rights to a half baked proposal. If you keep repeating that lie, then you're the one mentally ill.



People who can't take care of their own affairs have no business carrying firearms. People receiving social security for mental health issues have no business owning firearms. People on the terrorist watchlist should not be able to purchase firearms. These are common sense. I have no idea why gun rights activists can't get behind these common sense restrictions. Obviously you haven't had anyone close to you murdered or I can't imagine you supporting this insanity.


nebish - 11/9/2017 at 02:49 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Nothing will change. Not yesterday, today, tomorrow or ever.


I knew that if you posted you would say exactly that.

So then, why bother talking/posting about it? Why waste your time, why waste my time, why everyone else waste time? Why do we come to the internet to read and comment about issues?


Interesting that of all the responses, my simple one upsets you the most. Why?


It doesn't upset me at all. It was just so predictable. Maybe you are short on time or just at the point that you think it is pointless to go into a forum and talk about stuff. It's fine. But I recall so many topics where that is your post. The "nothing will change".

And it just makes me wonder, if that is your position why are we even wasting time trying to talk about it? If nothing will change why don't we just stop even bringing stuff up?


Bhawk - 11/9/2017 at 03:01 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Nothing will change. Not yesterday, today, tomorrow or ever.


I knew that if you posted you would say exactly that.

So then, why bother talking/posting about it? Why waste your time, why waste my time, why everyone else waste time? Why do we come to the internet to read and comment about issues?


Interesting that of all the responses, my simple one upsets you the most. Why?


It doesn't upset me at all. It was just so predictable. Maybe you are short on time or just at the point that you think it is pointless to go into a forum and talk about stuff. It's fine. But I recall so many topics where that is your post. The "nothing will change".

And it just makes me wonder, if that is your position why are we even wasting time trying to talk about it? If nothing will change why don't we just stop even bringing stuff up?


On this topic, guns and gun control, nothing will ever change. Ever.

The last time the FBI even tried to count, there's more guns in our country than people. Impossible for the government to take them all away.

Death by shooting, whether it's one person or two or twenty or thirty, has become an accepted risk in our society. People are obviously more than willing to live with it, and living with that risk in order to retain the right to own a gun is one that again, plenty of people are willing to live with.

In order to "do something" about mental illness, we as a country would have to come to terms with the fact that mental health issues are an issue to begin with. That's not happening anytime soon, because it's simply too easy to go get a pill for whatever your issue is.

I'm not blowing off the topic by saying nothing will change on guns, because it hasn't yet and never will. I don't like guns and don't own one, but if you want to have a howitzer in your driveway I don't care. I don't have the "typical" liberal opinion on this. I truly believe that the notion of any type of gun restriction, legislation or any other type of regulatory effort is nothing but a waste of time. I live in a deeply red state with basically no gun restrictions. Guess I'll just live with it. My opinion on it does not matter.


nebish - 11/9/2017 at 03:20 AM

I think what I'm hearing from people around me is more and more ordinary, not necessarily engaged, people are starting to question the process of buying and owning and the types of guns. Plenty have been calling for it for some time, but now there is more of it from other people. We all know there are so many weapons available that illegal access is going to remain an option for people who can't obtain a gun legally. But having a more tightly regulated process is growing among people that otherwise don't have opinions on legal or political topics. Maybe that trickles up to the candidates. There are some gun supporting Democrats and some less gun friendly Republicans.


Bhawk - 11/9/2017 at 03:30 AM

quote:
I think what I'm hearing from people around me is more and more ordinary, not necessarily engaged, people are starting to question the process of buying and owning and the types of guns. Plenty have been calling for it for some time, but now there is more of it from other people. We all know there are so many weapons available that illegal access is going to remain an option for people who can't obtain a gun legally. But having a more tightly regulated process is growing among people that otherwise don't have opinions on legal or political topics. Maybe that trickles up to the candidates. There are some gun supporting Democrats and some less gun friendly Republicans.


Haven't the reactions, though, become pretty tightly connected with mass shooting events, and those reactions all have the same short shelf life? This shooting will not be a story a week or so from now. Everyone will move on.


nebish - 11/9/2017 at 03:34 AM

It is so sad that these event do become the new normal. I don't know if we get hardened to it or what it is.


BrerRabbit - 11/9/2017 at 04:08 AM

quote:
It is so sad that these event do become the new normal. I don't know if we get hardened to it or what it is.


That's exactly what is happening.


BoytonBrother - 11/9/2017 at 01:57 PM

quote:
Why would you propose that? Are you crazy?


All I know is that there are a bunch of mentally ill, irresponsible millenials out there with social disorders who canít use a broom let alone a firearm, but they are Americans first. And if one of these types wants an AR-15, then by golly, they deserve one just as much as a you or I. Just because the cops and our military conduct extensive training for use of these weapons, doesnít mean Tyler who just graduated from high school canít have one too. 2nd amendment is the 2nd amendment. Sounds like you are suggesting we should strip away the god given rights of Tyler.


KCJimmy - 11/9/2017 at 09:14 PM

quote:
quote:
Why would you propose that? Are you crazy?


All I know is that there are a bunch of mentally ill, irresponsible millenials out there with social disorders who canít use a broom let alone a firearm, but they are Americans first. And if one of these types wants an AR-15, then by golly, they deserve one just as much as a you or I. Just because the cops and our military conduct extensive training for use of these weapons, doesnít mean Tyler who just graduated from high school canít have one too. 2nd amendment is the 2nd amendment. Sounds like you are suggesting we should strip away the god given rights of Tyler.
Who in the heck is Tyler? Doesn't matter. Much More Important I really never thought you and I would agree on ANYTHING. But... perhaps we could. No Guns for millennials? I could get get on board with that!

Not to embarrass you or anything but you spelled millennials wrong. Don't feel bad I had to look it up. I know you and others are fond of pointing these things out to some of us under achieving right wingers.


Muleman1994 - 11/9/2017 at 09:23 PM

quote:
Ok, mule how about an opinion and solution idea from you? You demanded that from me, I posted some ideas you thought were dumb, but I offered an opinion and solution without bashing anyone.

Your turn.




Enforcing the laws already on the books would dramatically reduce gun violence.

Just imaging how many black people would be alive today in Chicago if the Democrats who run that city and are responsible for public safety actually enforced the law.
Look deeply into it. You will see that the straw purchase of guns is rarely prosecuted there.



Jerry - 11/9/2017 at 09:49 PM




People who can't take care of their own affairs have no business carrying firearms. People receiving social security for mental health issues have no business owning firearms. People on the terrorist watchlist should not be able to purchase firearms. These are common sense. I have no idea why gun rights activists can't get behind these common sense restrictions. Obviously you haven't had anyone close to you murdered or I can't imagine you supporting this insanity.


To receive Social Security for mental health issues, you have to be ADJUDGED MENTALLY INCOMPETENT.
Those who have are prohibited from purchasing or even having firearms present.

What is your definition of "can't take care of their own affairs"?

Don't just keep repeating the same thing you are told to, learn what is real.

Yes, I have had family members murdered, one for as little as a pack of cigarettes. One of my cousins was shot in the head in the mid 60's and carried a 38 slug in his head until he died in 2001.

The real insanity here is that YOU BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE DENIED THEIR RIGHTS WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.


jkeller - 11/9/2017 at 09:52 PM

quote:
quote:
Ok, mule how about an opinion and solution idea from you? You demanded that from me, I posted some ideas you thought were dumb, but I offered an opinion and solution without bashing anyone.

Your turn.




Enforcing the laws already on the books would dramatically reduce gun violence.

Just imaging how many black people would be alive today in Chicago if the Democrats who run that city and are responsible for public safety actually enforced the law.
Look deeply into it. You will see that the straw purchase of guns is rarely prosecuted there.



f

Just imagine how many people in that Texas church might be alive if the Republican governor had any laws at all about guns. He whined that California had passed Texas in gun sales.


KCJimmy - 11/9/2017 at 09:55 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Ok, mule how about an opinion and solution idea from you? You demanded that from me, I posted some ideas you thought were dumb, but I offered an opinion and solution without bashing anyone.

Your turn.




Enforcing the laws already on the books would dramatically reduce gun violence.

Just imaging how many black people would be alive today in Chicago if the Democrats who run that city and are responsible for public safety actually enforced the law.
Look deeply into it. You will see that the straw purchase of guns is rarely prosecuted there.



f

Just imagine how many people in that Texas church might be alive if the Republican governor had any laws at all about guns. He whined that California had passed Texas in gun sales.
Just imagine if the laws on the books had been enforced in the first place. He would have never gotten a gun. That is the point. Enforcing current laws makes all the difference in the world. What good are more laws if they are not being enforced. You should probably read that twice.


BrerRabbit - 11/9/2017 at 10:17 PM

Truth. If enough people ignore a law it becomes useless if enforcement can't keep after it. It is tacit revolution. The traffic thread got me thinking on this: Speeding is a crime. A dangerous crime with dire consequences. We all do it. It costs us more in taxpayer money from ER to cops and cleanup and so on than mass murder, but we all accept it and do it anyway. For some strange reason we all collude to be criminals in certain areas. Sometimes it is positive, as in the victory over marijuana oppression out west. That took decades of lawbreaking to achieve.

Law isn't going to fix this. This is about alienation, a society of isolated individuals that don't pay attention to each other, lack of community. The best place to start is with dialogue like this, people need to pay attention in their own circles and fix the loose cannons before they blow.


KCJimmy - 11/9/2017 at 11:05 PM

quote:
Truth. If enough people ignore a law it becomes useless if enforcement can't keep after it. It is tacit revolution. The traffic thread got me thinking on this: Speeding is a crime. A dangerous crime with dire consequences. We all do it. It costs us more in taxpayer money from ER to cops and cleanup and so on than mass murder, but we all accept it and do it anyway. For some strange reason we all collude to be criminals in certain areas. Sometimes it is positive, as in the victory over marijuana oppression out west. That took decades of lawbreaking to achieve.

Law isn't going to fix this. This is about alienation, a society of isolated individuals that don't pay attention to each other, lack of community. The best place to start is with dialogue like this, people need to pay attention in their own circles and fix the loose cannons before they blow.
There is just no way in the world I can disagree with any of that.

MAGA


BoytonBrother - 11/10/2017 at 12:53 PM

quote:
Not to embarrass you or anything


LOL!


BIGV - 11/10/2017 at 03:56 PM



quote:
Law isn't going to fix this. This is about alienation, a society of isolated individuals that don't pay attention to each other, lack of community. The best place to start is with dialogue like this, people need to pay attention in their own circles and fix the loose cannons before they blow.


Truth


gina - 11/16/2017 at 09:11 PM

quote:
1 - There is no reason in the world for any civilian to own an automatic weapon. Period; case closed.

2 - It is a mental health and a gun issue. Did someone who was court-martialed and imprisoned for battery against his wife and child obtain weapons legally?

3 - From both a gun and an immigration standpoint: Yes, this guy was eventually dishonorably discharged. But if the US military can't vette someone how can we trust our government to vette either of the above?



Regarding:

1) Yes there is a reason. Home invasion, protection of life, property because sometimes it is not just one thug that breaks into someone's home. If there are two or more a shotgun and rifle are more cumbersome to manage taking them out, if it is just one person, shoot him in the gut with your shotgun and you are safe. He will die. If there are two or three, you can only incapacitate one at a time, and you may not have the time to delay the others unless you have a handgun.

2) Mental health/gun issues: agreed anyone arrested regardless of conviction for drunk driving, or other offenses where they may plead guilty to lesser charges should not get a gun. Domestic violence is a crime committed by someone who is a bully, wants to dominate someone else. Bullies should not have guns. Anyone convicted of a crime should not get a gun. If they are convicted it means they had faulty judgment and/or little or no regard for the rights of others. That is a big flaw, and a person like that cannot have a weapon.

Former military - If they are dishonorably discharged or have PTSD they should not have a weapon.
Developmentally disabled people - no weapon. The military have their own rules that they follow in vetting people. There needs to be perhaps another database that coordinates all military personnel and lists any conditions they have when they are being released and that needs to be accessible to the gun stores and law enforcement. Maybe we need a GUN department in the govt. and they go thru all these agencies, and get the information and then the gun stores get a yea or nay from them. If they can simply the tax code they should be able to simply this.

It is not all that difficult, if someone is a eff-up, they should not have a weapon.

Alcoholics, no weapon,

ptsd vets, no weapon,

developmentally disabled, no weapon or access to one, it is not cute, it is not a family sharing experience to see how well junior can shoot, junior should not have access to mommy or daddy's weapons. They do not have the mental capacity to comprehend when or who to shoot, or probably the skill to do it without hurting others who are not the intended targets. They get angry, confused, well angry/confused people cannot be using weapons.

Convicts, no weapon upon release from jail, domestic violence abusers, no weapon.

Visa Waiver people in this country to study - no weapon.

If they are not a US citizen - no weapon.

Would that solve some of the problems?




[Edited on 11/16/2017 by gina]

[Edited on 11/16/2017 by gina]


BrerRabbit - 11/17/2017 at 01:26 AM

quote:
angry/confused people cannot be using weapons


That pretty much rules out most folks.


Muleman1994 - 11/17/2017 at 01:53 AM

quote:
quote:
angry/confused people cannot be using weapons


That pretty much rules out most folks.



So how do you make sure the law the abiding citizens can have the weapons that they are entitled to under the Constitution to protect themselves and their families and prevent angry/confused people from getting a weapon?


BrerRabbit - 11/17/2017 at 01:59 AM


lol - good deadpan. Thought you were serious for a sec.


IPowrie - 11/17/2017 at 02:03 AM

I just want to know why the right to own a gun is more important than the lives of those killed by gun violence. Where are the pro-lifers on this issue or does that only matter during pregnancy?


Muleman1994 - 11/17/2017 at 02:09 AM

quote:
I just want to know why the right to own a gun is more important than the lives of those killed by gun violence. Where are the pro-lifers on this issue or does that only matter during pregnancy?




Typical far-left misrepresentation and convoluting of two separate issues.

Americans have a Constitutional right to own and use weapons to protect themselves.
No one has a right to kill a baby.


I did not say "he make these issues more complicated and difficult to follow".
Those are your words.

My post pointed out that the gun issue has nothing to do with the killing babies issue.
That is only difficult to follow if your political agenda so controls you that you cannot analyze two separate matters.


[Edited on 11/17/2017 by Muleman1994]


BrerRabbit - 11/17/2017 at 02:22 AM

Convoluting of two separate issues? How did he make these issues more complicated and difficult to follow?


BIGV - 11/17/2017 at 04:28 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
angry/confused people cannot be using weapons


That pretty much rules out most folks.



So how do you make sure the law the abiding citizens can have the weapons that they are entitled to under the Constitution to protect themselves and their families and prevent angry/confused people from getting a weapon?


Simple, the left has one answer and only one for this issue, more laws.


jkeller - 11/17/2017 at 04:57 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
angry/confused people cannot be using weapons


That pretty much rules out most folks.



So how do you make sure the law the abiding citizens can have the weapons that they are entitled to under the Constitution to protect themselves and their families and prevent angry/confused people from getting a weapon?


Simple, the left has one answer and only one for this issue, more laws.


He didnít ask for one of your pointless generalizations, he asked what you would do. Try again.


BIGV - 11/17/2017 at 07:11 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
angry/confused people cannot be using weapons


That pretty much rules out most folks.



So how do you make sure the law the abiding citizens can have the weapons that they are entitled to under the Constitution to protect themselves and their families and prevent angry/confused people from getting a weapon?


Simple, the left has one answer and only one for this issue, more laws.


He didnít ask for one of your pointless generalizations, he asked what you would do. Try again.


You are just so entertaining


BirdsAway - 11/17/2017 at 11:49 AM

quote:
1 - There is no reason in the world for any civilian to own an automatic weapon. Period; case closed.

2 - It is a mental health and a gun issue. Did someone who was court-martialed and imprisoned for battery against his wife and child obtain weapons legally?

3 - From both a gun and an immigration standpoint: Yes, this guy was eventually dishonorably discharged. But if the US military can't vette someone how can we trust our government to vette either of the above?


No automatic weapons have been used in any of the incidents being discussed. The National Firearms Act of 1984 prohibited the sale of automatic weapons to civilians for guns made after the date the Act was enacted. So only guns made prior to 1984 can be held by civilians. The number of these guns is small which makes them prohibitively expensive for most people. Also, an application for purchase on one of these weapons has to go through the BATFE and you will be thoroughly investigated prior to it being approved which takes a minimum of six months usually much longer. Also, you are then subject to no notice inspections at your residence by BATFE agents or local law enforcement to ensure you are following the restrictions on the storage of such weapons.

If you want to have a national discussion on the topic then please, at the very least, educate yourself on the topic. Too many of the laws passed deal with aesthetics of the guns and not with anything that contribute to their lethality.


BoytonBrother - 11/17/2017 at 12:05 PM

quote:
If you want to have a national discussion on the topic then please, at the very least, educate yourself on the topic.


Macho macho man! BirdsAway's got to be...a macho man. At the very least, you should know this isn't about the semantics of automatic v semi-automatic.

[Edited on 11/17/2017 by BoytonBrother]


jkeller - 11/17/2017 at 03:27 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
angry/confused people cannot be using weapons


That pretty much rules out most folks.



So how do you make sure the law the abiding citizens can have the weapons that they are entitled to under the Constitution to protect themselves and their families and prevent angry/confused people from getting a weapon?


Simple, the left has one answer and only one for this issue, more laws.


He didnít ask for one of your pointless generalizations, he asked what you would do. Try again.


You are just so entertaining




And you can't answer questions you wish others to answer.


BirdsAway - 11/18/2017 at 11:02 AM

quote:
quote:
If you want to have a national discussion on the topic then please, at the very least, educate yourself on the topic.


Macho macho man! BirdsAway's got to be...a macho man. At the very least, you should know this isn't about the semantics of automatic v semi-automatic.

[Edited on 11/17/2017 by BoytonBrother]


The personal attack was unwarranted and somewhat childish. I'm not challenging your echo chamber here. I'm merely stating that to have a "national discussion" both sides must be knowledgeable about the topic at hand. Otherwise it becomes very easy for one side to dismiss the other as ignorant of the facts. A lack of specific knowledge is what brings us laws banning pistol grips, muzzle devices, etc. that have little or nothing to do with the lethality of the weapons in question.


BoytonBrother - 11/18/2017 at 02:48 PM

I was responding in the same fashion in which you initiated, to show you how you sound.

As for the debate, I agree that everyone should be educated on the topic, which is not about the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, but rather about why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease.


Jerry - 11/18/2017 at 03:44 PM

quote:
As for the debate, I agree that everyone should be educated on the topic, which is not about the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, but rather about why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease.


You talk about the need to be educated on the topic, but you continuously say in one form or another "why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease".

1) Assault rifles can't be bought by civilians. Civilians who pass the background check, FBI investigation, and financial resources available can purchase full auto weapons, but they are not assault rifles. ( I hold ATF F5530.3 permits and they aren't no where as tough as getting a class 3 FFL.)

2) Those who have been adjudged mentally incompetent are legally prohibited to purchase any weapon.

3) I have pointed these items out to you and others many times on this forum, but you choose not to learn
these facts and keep spouting off the phrases and buzz words you are told to.

4) The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The letters AR do not represent automatic rifle, or assault rifle. They stand for Armalite, the company that made the AR-10 which the M-15 was based on, and the AR-30 which is a bolt action rifle. I thought that bolt actions would never be classified as an assault weapon, but it's been tried.

5) The framers of the Constitution knew of multi-shot firearms. The Continental Congress even contracted with Cookson to make 100 of his LEVER ACTION breech loading repeaters. So the line used about them only knowing about single shot muzzle loaders is basically a lie.

Now, there are a few things you can learn today. I'll be glad to post more if you wish to learn


BirdsAway, I've been trying for about 15 years to get these guys to acknowledge truth rather than party dogma. Maybe with several of us giving back facts when they repeat drivel will help them learn.


BrerRabbit - 11/18/2017 at 05:13 PM

Heard an interesting seg on Coast2coast last night - casino host who knew the killer. As much as anyone could know him. The profile he gave was a good schooling in personality red flags; antisocial, isolated, no friends, shunned by others (common descrip was "that guy gives me the creeps"), extremely confrontational, angry, no sense of humor, only engaged in conversation to prove himself right (when he talked at all).

Of course this describes a lot of us, but still worthwhile to take seriously and keep in mind as we observe folks in our own interactions. These traits when exaggerated could be good indicators of who is most likely to go postal.

It is possible that if people like this were made aware, even through a few simple comments from coworkers, family, associates, blogmates, that their wiring was apparent "man, what's eating you, you gonna go postal or what?", their illusion of isolation and secrecy would be weakened just enough to keep them from stewing and following through.

This seems to be something that requires a coccoon of self to thrive. They are cowards, and surely must be convinced that nobody knows, which feeds their illusion of power. If they felt that their cover were blown, they just might stand down.


jkeller - 11/18/2017 at 06:05 PM

quote:
quote:
As for the debate, I agree that everyone should be educated on the topic, which is not about the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, but rather about why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease.


You talk about the need to be educated on the topic, but you continuously say in one form or another "why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease".

1) Assault rifles can't be bought by civilians. Civilians who pass the background check, FBI investigation, and financial resources available can purchase full auto weapons, but they are not assault rifles. ( I hold ATF F5530.3 permits and they aren't no where as tough as getting a class 3 FFL.)

2) Those who have been adjudged mentally incompetent are legally prohibited to purchase any weapon.

3) I have pointed these items out to you and others many times on this forum, but you choose not to learn
these facts and keep spouting off the phrases and buzz words you are told to.

4) The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The letters AR do not represent automatic rifle, or assault rifle. They stand for Armalite, the company that made the AR-10 which the M-15 was based on, and the AR-30 which is a bolt action rifle. I thought that bolt actions would never be classified as an assault weapon, but it's been tried.

5) The framers of the Constitution knew of multi-shot firearms. The Continental Congress even contracted with Cookson to make 100 of his LEVER ACTION breech loading repeaters. So the line used about them only knowing about single shot muzzle loaders is basically a lie.

Now, there are a few things you can learn today. I'll be glad to post more if you wish to learn


BirdsAway, I've been trying for about 15 years to get these guys to acknowledge truth rather than party dogma. Maybe with several of us giving back facts when they repeat drivel will help them learn.


The police in Texas and Las Vegas said it was an assault rifle. The FBI said it was an assault rifle. The ATF said it was an assault rifle. Semantics aside, it doesn't matter. Nobody needs to own an AR-15.


Jerry - 11/19/2017 at 12:00 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
As for the debate, I agree that everyone should be educated on the topic, which is not about the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, but rather about why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease.


You talk about the need to be educated on the topic, but you continuously say in one form or another "why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease".

1) Assault rifles can't be bought by civilians. Civilians who pass the background check, FBI investigation, and financial resources available can purchase full auto weapons, but they are not assault rifles. ( I hold ATF F5530.3 permits and they aren't no where as tough as getting a class 3 FFL.)

2) Those who have been adjudged mentally incompetent are legally prohibited to purchase any weapon.

3) I have pointed these items out to you and others many times on this forum, but you choose not to learn
these facts and keep spouting off the phrases and buzz words you are told to.

4) The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The letters AR do not represent automatic rifle, or assault rifle. They stand for Armalite, the company that made the AR-10 which the M-15 was based on, and the AR-30 which is a bolt action rifle. I thought that bolt actions would never be classified as an assault weapon, but it's been tried.

5) The framers of the Constitution knew of multi-shot firearms. The Continental Congress even contracted with Cookson to make 100 of his LEVER ACTION breech loading repeaters. So the line used about them only knowing about single shot muzzle loaders is basically a lie.

Now, there are a few things you can learn today. I'll be glad to post more if you wish to learn


BirdsAway, I've been trying for about 15 years to get these guys to acknowledge truth rather than party dogma. Maybe with several of us giving back facts when they repeat drivel will help them learn.


The police in Texas and Las Vegas said it was an assault rifle. The FBI said it was an assault rifle. The ATF said it was an assault rifle. Semantics aside, it doesn't matter. Nobody needs to own an AR-15.


The same people use "decimated", "point blank range", and "cop killer bullets" all the time. I guess they don't know the definition of those words either.

And yes, people do need to own AR-15's, also according to the Constitution the public is supposed to have access to anything the military has access to.
Like I said before, I hold ATF F5530.3 permits. I can import ammo, components, and implements of war to the US. I know what is legal and what is not. I know what the ATF designates as an assault rifle. Guess what, it isn't the AR-15.
The only firearms the ATF legally recognizes as assault rifles is the military issue AK-47 full auto and the STG-44 military issue full auto.

So now you know that those who said the AR-15 is an assault rifle didn't know what they were talking about.

See, ya'll learned something new right there.


LeafontheWind - 11/19/2017 at 12:54 AM

OK so just call them "mass murder rifles" because that is all they are used for. Abolish the 2nd Amendment it is to blame for responsible gun owners turning into gun fanatics. Banning and regulation of guns is very effective, just look at fully automatic weapons. Machine guns not easily available so killers get a convenient AR-style instead. Body count goes down. Ban the AR-style weapons the body counts will go down even further.

Also the NRA needs to be established as a hate group. They are no longer a simple advocacy for gun safety and rights. Don't believe me? Here is their latest commercial. Your NRA membership fees at work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrnIVVWtAag

Enjoy, gun f*ckers!


Jerry - 11/19/2017 at 01:26 AM

quote:
OK so just call them "mass murder rifles" because that is all they are used for. Abolish the 2nd Amendment it is to blame for responsible gun owners turning into gun fanatics. Banning and regulation of guns is very effective, just look at fully automatic weapons. Machine guns not easily available so killers get a convenient AR-style instead. Body count goes down. Ban the AR-style weapons the body counts will go down even further.

Also the NRA needs to be established as a hate group. They are no longer a simple advocacy for gun safety and rights. Don't believe me? Here is their latest commercial. Your NRA membership fees at work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrnIVVWtAag

Enjoy, gun f*ckers!


Another person to teach, yeaaaa!

Now, explain to me what is wrong with the ad. What is not true about the ad? Where is hate for others by the NRA shown in the ad?

Why don't you just admit that you don't like firearms. There's no shame in that. It's not like you are going to be made to own and carry a firearm.


BIGV - 11/19/2017 at 02:04 AM

quote:
Abolish the 2nd Amendment


Absolutely not.

quote:
it is to blame for responsible gun owners turning into gun fanatics.


Keyword:Responsible


BoytonBrother - 11/19/2017 at 07:05 AM

Jerry, I respect your knowledge on guns, but spare me your irrelevant b.s. Who gives sh*t about what the damn guns are called? Letís drop the ďI need to educate peopleĒ act.

You mention a lot about guns, about how a mentally ill person cannot buy one once diagnosed, as if that magically addresses the issue somehow. Do you really believe that eliminates the threat of a mentally ill person legally buying a gun? Talk about being educated.


BirdsAway - 11/19/2017 at 12:18 PM

quote:
Jerry, I respect your knowledge on guns, but spare me your irrelevant b.s. Who gives sh*t about what the damn guns are called? Letís drop the ďI need to educate peopleĒ act.

You mention a lot about guns, about how a mentally ill person cannot buy one once diagnosed, as if that magically addresses the issue somehow. Do you really believe that eliminates the threat of a mentally ill person legally buying a gun? Talk about being educated.


Fine, let's talk about the mental health issue in America. We all hear about these terrible tragedies but there are smaller tragedies that play out every day all over the country. Simply flip on the local news on any day and there will be at least one, if not many, story or stories that reflect directly on our inability to tackle this problem.


Jerry - 11/19/2017 at 02:18 PM

quote:
Jerry, I respect your knowledge on guns, but spare me your irrelevant b.s. Who gives sh*t about what the damn guns are called? Letís drop the ďI need to educate peopleĒ act.

You mention a lot about guns, about how a mentally ill person cannot buy one once diagnosed, as if that magically addresses the issue somehow. Do you really believe that eliminates the threat of a mentally ill person legally buying a gun? Talk about being educated.


You really need to go back and read what you typed.

Once a person has been legally adjudged to be mentally ill, they cannot LEGALLY purchase any firearm, they cannot LEGALLY own a firearm, they cannot LEGALLY be in possession of a firearm.

So yes, it does address the issue of a mentally ill person and firearms and eliminates the threat of a mentally ill person LEGALLY buying a firearm with no magic involved.

Of course it helps if the facts of their case are reported so as to show up in the background check, unlike the latest issue with the USAF not reporting the domestic abuse, jail time, commitment to a mental institution, escape from the mental institution, and subsequent issues after release.

You can believe it or not, but the background check system works if proper information is submitted.


jkeller - 11/19/2017 at 04:31 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
As for the debate, I agree that everyone should be educated on the topic, which is not about the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, but rather about why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease.


You talk about the need to be educated on the topic, but you continuously say in one form or another "why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease".

1) Assault rifles can't be bought by civilians. Civilians who pass the background check, FBI investigation, and financial resources available can purchase full auto weapons, but they are not assault rifles. ( I hold ATF F5530.3 permits and they aren't no where as tough as getting a class 3 FFL.)

2) Those who have been adjudged mentally incompetent are legally prohibited to purchase any weapon.

3) I have pointed these items out to you and others many times on this forum, but you choose not to learn
these facts and keep spouting off the phrases and buzz words you are told to.

4) The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The letters AR do not represent automatic rifle, or assault rifle. They stand for Armalite, the company that made the AR-10 which the M-15 was based on, and the AR-30 which is a bolt action rifle. I thought that bolt actions would never be classified as an assault weapon, but it's been tried.

5) The framers of the Constitution knew of multi-shot firearms. The Continental Congress even contracted with Cookson to make 100 of his LEVER ACTION breech loading repeaters. So the line used about them only knowing about single shot muzzle loaders is basically a lie.

Now, there are a few things you can learn today. I'll be glad to post more if you wish to learn


BirdsAway, I've been trying for about 15 years to get these guys to acknowledge truth rather than party dogma. Maybe with several of us giving back facts when they repeat drivel will help them learn.


The police in Texas and Las Vegas said it was an assault rifle. The FBI said it was an assault rifle. The ATF said it was an assault rifle. Semantics aside, it doesn't matter. Nobody needs to own an AR-15.


The same people use "decimated", "point blank range", and "cop killer bullets" all the time. I guess they don't know the definition of those words either.

And yes, people do need to own AR-15's, also according to the Constitution the public is supposed to have access to anything the military has access to.
Like I said before, I hold ATF F5530.3 permits. I can import ammo, components, and implements of war to the US. I know what is legal and what is not. I know what the ATF designates as an assault rifle. Guess what, it isn't the AR-15.
The only firearms the ATF legally recognizes as assault rifles is the military issue AK-47 full auto and the STG-44 military issue full auto.

So now you know that those who said the AR-15 is an assault rifle didn't know what they were talking about.

See, ya'll learned something new right there.


Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the people are allowed too have access to the same weapons as the military. Actually, the 2nd Amendment does not allow ownership of weapons. It says we have the right to bear arms, which is not the same as owning them. People in the military do not own the weapons the government gives them. Since you are such a literalist, I am surprised you do not see that. The 1st Amendment allows free speech, but there are restrictions on that such as slander, libel and yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

See? You learned something. And you are not really as smart as you perceive yourself to be.


BrerRabbit - 11/19/2017 at 05:05 PM

quote:
Actually, the 2nd Amendment does not allow ownership of weapons. It says we have the right to bear arms, which is not the same as owning them. People in the military do not own the weapons the government gives them


I realize you are making a point about the danger of hi-power military arsenals in every garage of every Joe Blow whacked out on Xanax and Coco Puffs, but man gotta say this reads really bad - in effect that only the govt can "own" guns. Which would mean wben anyone wants to exercise their 2nd amendment right to "bear" arms, they would have to obtain them from the govt.


jkeller - 11/19/2017 at 06:16 PM

quote:
quote:
Actually, the 2nd Amendment does not allow ownership of weapons. It says we have the right to bear arms, which is not the same as owning them. People in the military do not own the weapons the government gives them


I realize you are making a point about the danger of hi-power military arsenals in every garage of every Joe Blow whacked out on Xanax and Coco Puffs, but man gotta say this reads really bad - in effect that only the govt can "own" guns. Which would mean wben anyone wants to exercise their 2nd amendment right to "bear" arms, they would have to obtain them from the govt.



Actually, my point was more about how Jerry likes to give everything a literal interpretation when it suits his purpose. There are 2 sides to that coin.


Muleman1994 - 11/19/2017 at 11:08 PM

Jerry, you seem to be in a battle of wits with the unarmed.

Not one of the gun control screamers has or ever will offer a proposal or legislation that would ensure the citizenís Constitutional right to defend themselves and get guns out of the hands of the criminals and people who should not have a gun.

Look at all their posts claiming that no one should have an automatic weapon. Apparently, they are all unaware that automatic weapons are already illegal.

The Obama administration made the bump-stock accessory legal for sale to anyone yet the only people working on legislation to make it illegal are Republicans.

We can all wait for the lefties to come up with a solution should they ever chose to participate in a resolution.

Donít hold your breath.


Jerry - 11/20/2017 at 01:45 AM

quote:
quote:
As for the debate, I agree that everyone should be educated on the topic, which is not about the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, but rather about why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease.


You talk about the need to be educated on the topic, but you continuously say in one form or another "why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease".

1) Assault rifles can't be bought by civilians. Civilians who pass the background check, FBI investigation, and financial resources available can purchase full auto weapons, but they are not assault rifles. ( I hold ATF F5530.3 permits and they aren't no where as tough as getting a class 3 FFL.)

2) Those who have been adjudged mentally incompetent are legally prohibited to purchase any weapon.

3) I have pointed these items out to you and others many times on this forum, but you choose not to learn
these facts and keep spouting off the phrases and buzz words you are told to.

4) The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The letters AR do not represent automatic rifle, or assault rifle. They stand for Armalite, the company that made the AR-10 which the M-15 was based on, and the AR-30 which is a bolt action rifle. I thought that bolt actions would never be classified as an assault weapon, but it's been tried.

5) The framers of the Constitution knew of multi-shot firearms. The Continental Congress even contracted with Cookson to make 100 of his LEVER ACTION breech loading repeaters. So the line used about them only knowing about single shot muzzle loaders is basically a lie.

Now, there are a few things you can learn today. I'll be glad to post more if you wish to learn


BirdsAway, I've been trying for about 15 years to get these guys to acknowledge truth rather than party dogma. Maybe with several of us giving back facts when they repeat drivel will help them learn.


The police in Texas and Las Vegas said it was an assault rifle. The FBI said it was an assault rifle. The ATF said it was an assault rifle. Semantics aside, it doesn't matter. Nobody needs to own an AR-15.


The same people use "decimated", "point blank range", and "cop killer bullets" all the time. I guess they don't know the definition of those words either.

And yes, people do need to own AR-15's, also according to the Constitution the public is supposed to have access to anything the military has access to.
Like I said before, I hold ATF F5530.3 permits. I can import ammo, components, and implements of war to the US. I know what is legal and what is not. I know what the ATF designates as an assault rifle. Guess what, it isn't the AR-15.
The only firearms the ATF legally recognizes as assault rifles is the military issue AK-47 full auto and the STG-44 military issue full auto.

So now you know that those who said the AR-15 is an assault rifle didn't know what they were talking about.

See, ya'll learned something new right there.


Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the people are allowed too have access to the same weapons as the military. Actually, the 2nd Amendment does not allow ownership of weapons. It says we have the right to bear arms, which is not the same as owning them. People in the military do not own the weapons the government gives them. Since you are such a literalist, I am surprised you do not see that. The 1st Amendment allows free speech, but there are restrictions on that such as slander, libel and yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

See? You learned something. And you are not really as smart as you perceive yourself to be.


If you had been reading my posts, you would find I had given the Article and Section of the Constitution that says that. By the way, it's not the 2nd Amendment, but in the body of the Constitution.
Go back and read my posts, then come back and argue if you can. Oh, and get a copy of the Constitution and read it. AND, remember I said ACCESS, not POSSESS. You do know the difference between those two words, right?


jkeller - 11/20/2017 at 02:07 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
As for the debate, I agree that everyone should be educated on the topic, which is not about the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, but rather about why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease.


You talk about the need to be educated on the topic, but you continuously say in one form or another "why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease".

1) Assault rifles can't be bought by civilians. Civilians who pass the background check, FBI investigation, and financial resources available can purchase full auto weapons, but they are not assault rifles. ( I hold ATF F5530.3 permits and they aren't no where as tough as getting a class 3 FFL.)

2) Those who have been adjudged mentally incompetent are legally prohibited to purchase any weapon.

3) I have pointed these items out to you and others many times on this forum, but you choose not to learn
these facts and keep spouting off the phrases and buzz words you are told to.

4) The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The letters AR do not represent automatic rifle, or assault rifle. They stand for Armalite, the company that made the AR-10 which the M-15 was based on, and the AR-30 which is a bolt action rifle. I thought that bolt actions would never be classified as an assault weapon, but it's been tried.

5) The framers of the Constitution knew of multi-shot firearms. The Continental Congress even contracted with Cookson to make 100 of his LEVER ACTION breech loading repeaters. So the line used about them only knowing about single shot muzzle loaders is basically a lie.

Now, there are a few things you can learn today. I'll be glad to post more if you wish to learn


BirdsAway, I've been trying for about 15 years to get these guys to acknowledge truth rather than party dogma. Maybe with several of us giving back facts when they repeat drivel will help them learn.


The police in Texas and Las Vegas said it was an assault rifle. The FBI said it was an assault rifle. The ATF said it was an assault rifle. Semantics aside, it doesn't matter. Nobody needs to own an AR-15.


The same people use "decimated", "point blank range", and "cop killer bullets" all the time. I guess they don't know the definition of those words either.

And yes, people do need to own AR-15's, also according to the Constitution the public is supposed to have access to anything the military has access to.
Like I said before, I hold ATF F5530.3 permits. I can import ammo, components, and implements of war to the US. I know what is legal and what is not. I know what the ATF designates as an assault rifle. Guess what, it isn't the AR-15.
The only firearms the ATF legally recognizes as assault rifles is the military issue AK-47 full auto and the STG-44 military issue full auto.

So now you know that those who said the AR-15 is an assault rifle didn't know what they were talking about.

See, ya'll learned something new right there.


Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the people are allowed too have access to the same weapons as the military. Actually, the 2nd Amendment does not allow ownership of weapons. It says we have the right to bear arms, which is not the same as owning them. People in the military do not own the weapons the government gives them. Since you are such a literalist, I am surprised you do not see that. The 1st Amendment allows free speech, but there are restrictions on that such as slander, libel and yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

See? You learned something. And you are not really as smart as you perceive yourself to be.


If you had been reading my posts, you would find I had given the Article and Section of the Constitution that says that. By the way, it's not the 2nd Amendment, but in the body of the Constitution.
Go back and read my posts, then come back and argue if you can. Oh, and get a copy of the Constitution and read it. AND, remember I said ACCESS, not POSSESS. You do know the difference between those two words, right?


BS. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about the right to bear arms other than the 2nd Amendment. Nice try to send me off on a wild goose chase. And if the Constitution only permits access to arms, your arguments for gun ownership are BS as well. Most of your arguments are meant to deflect. Take a stand and stick with instead of deflecting every argument that is made against you.


BrerRabbit - 11/20/2017 at 02:10 AM

Yeah - the Constitution is "Living Document", which means interpretation is a process.

Ok, now this:

quote:
The Obama administration made the bump-stock accessory legal for sale to anyone yet the only people working on legislation to make it illegal are Republicans.


Looks here like the Republicans are bringing down the gavel on new law, while the Artist Formerly Known as President actually did some freeing up of restrictions.

I really don't get your angle. Whine about restrictions, but it is ok for Republicans to interfere with gun rights, but if a Democrat eases restrictions he is an evil SOB who supports mass murder?



Jerry - 11/20/2017 at 02:26 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
As for the debate, I agree that everyone should be educated on the topic, which is not about the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, but rather about why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease.


You talk about the need to be educated on the topic, but you continuously say in one form or another "why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease".

1) Assault rifles can't be bought by civilians. Civilians who pass the background check, FBI investigation, and financial resources available can purchase full auto weapons, but they are not assault rifles. ( I hold ATF F5530.3 permits and they aren't no where as tough as getting a class 3 FFL.)

2) Those who have been adjudged mentally incompetent are legally prohibited to purchase any weapon.

3) I have pointed these items out to you and others many times on this forum, but you choose not to learn
these facts and keep spouting off the phrases and buzz words you are told to.

4) The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The letters AR do not represent automatic rifle, or assault rifle. They stand for Armalite, the company that made the AR-10 which the M-15 was based on, and the AR-30 which is a bolt action rifle. I thought that bolt actions would never be classified as an assault weapon, but it's been tried.

5) The framers of the Constitution knew of multi-shot firearms. The Continental Congress even contracted with Cookson to make 100 of his LEVER ACTION breech loading repeaters. So the line used about them only knowing about single shot muzzle loaders is basically a lie.

Now, there are a few things you can learn today. I'll be glad to post more if you wish to learn


BirdsAway, I've been trying for about 15 years to get these guys to acknowledge truth rather than party dogma. Maybe with several of us giving back facts when they repeat drivel will help them learn.


The police in Texas and Las Vegas said it was an assault rifle. The FBI said it was an assault rifle. The ATF said it was an assault rifle. Semantics aside, it doesn't matter. Nobody needs to own an AR-15.


The same people use "decimated", "point blank range", and "cop killer bullets" all the time. I guess they don't know the definition of those words either.

And yes, people do need to own AR-15's, also according to the Constitution the public is supposed to have access to anything the military has access to.
Like I said before, I hold ATF F5530.3 permits. I can import ammo, components, and implements of war to the US. I know what is legal and what is not. I know what the ATF designates as an assault rifle. Guess what, it isn't the AR-15.
The only firearms the ATF legally recognizes as assault rifles is the military issue AK-47 full auto and the STG-44 military issue full auto.

So now you know that those who said the AR-15 is an assault rifle didn't know what they were talking about.

See, ya'll learned something new right there.


Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the people are allowed too have access to the same weapons as the military. Actually, the 2nd Amendment does not allow ownership of weapons. It says we have the right to bear arms, which is not the same as owning them. People in the military do not own the weapons the government gives them. Since you are such a literalist, I am surprised you do not see that. The 1st Amendment allows free speech, but there are restrictions on that such as slander, libel and yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

See? You learned something. And you are not really as smart as you perceive yourself to be.


If you had been reading my posts, you would find I had given the Article and Section of the Constitution that says that. By the way, it's not the 2nd Amendment, but in the body of the Constitution.
Go back and read my posts, then come back and argue if you can. Oh, and get a copy of the Constitution and read it. AND, remember I said ACCESS, not POSSESS. You do know the difference between those two words, right?


BS. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about the right to bear arms other than the 2nd Amendment. Nice try to send me off on a wild goose chase. And if the Constitution only permits access to arms, your arguments for gun ownership are BS as well. Most of your arguments are meant to deflect. Take a stand and stick with instead of deflecting every argument that is made against you.


So you are afraid to read the Constitution since it will prove you wrong? Here's the place to go to if you just don't like to read and be properly informed.
Find a copy of the Constitution. Go to Article I, Section VIII, para 16. You can go read the rest if you want.

I wasn't aware of any arguments against me, other than from those who don't like to be presented with facts that don't support or contradicts their dogma.


jkeller - 11/20/2017 at 02:36 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
As for the debate, I agree that everyone should be educated on the topic, which is not about the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, but rather about why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease.


You talk about the need to be educated on the topic, but you continuously say in one form or another "why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease".

1) Assault rifles can't be bought by civilians. Civilians who pass the background check, FBI investigation, and financial resources available can purchase full auto weapons, but they are not assault rifles. ( I hold ATF F5530.3 permits and they aren't no where as tough as getting a class 3 FFL.)

2) Those who have been adjudged mentally incompetent are legally prohibited to purchase any weapon.

3) I have pointed these items out to you and others many times on this forum, but you choose not to learn
these facts and keep spouting off the phrases and buzz words you are told to.

4) The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The letters AR do not represent automatic rifle, or assault rifle. They stand for Armalite, the company that made the AR-10 which the M-15 was based on, and the AR-30 which is a bolt action rifle. I thought that bolt actions would never be classified as an assault weapon, but it's been tried.

5) The framers of the Constitution knew of multi-shot firearms. The Continental Congress even contracted with Cookson to make 100 of his LEVER ACTION breech loading repeaters. So the line used about them only knowing about single shot muzzle loaders is basically a lie.

Now, there are a few things you can learn today. I'll be glad to post more if you wish to learn


BirdsAway, I've been trying for about 15 years to get these guys to acknowledge truth rather than party dogma. Maybe with several of us giving back facts when they repeat drivel will help them learn.


The police in Texas and Las Vegas said it was an assault rifle. The FBI said it was an assault rifle. The ATF said it was an assault rifle. Semantics aside, it doesn't matter. Nobody needs to own an AR-15.


The same people use "decimated", "point blank range", and "cop killer bullets" all the time. I guess they don't know the definition of those words either.

And yes, people do need to own AR-15's, also according to the Constitution the public is supposed to have access to anything the military has access to.
Like I said before, I hold ATF F5530.3 permits. I can import ammo, components, and implements of war to the US. I know what is legal and what is not. I know what the ATF designates as an assault rifle. Guess what, it isn't the AR-15.
The only firearms the ATF legally recognizes as assault rifles is the military issue AK-47 full auto and the STG-44 military issue full auto.

So now you know that those who said the AR-15 is an assault rifle didn't know what they were talking about.

See, ya'll learned something new right there.


Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the people are allowed too have access to the same weapons as the military. Actually, the 2nd Amendment does not allow ownership of weapons. It says we have the right to bear arms, which is not the same as owning them. People in the military do not own the weapons the government gives them. Since you are such a literalist, I am surprised you do not see that. The 1st Amendment allows free speech, but there are restrictions on that such as slander, libel and yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

See? You learned something. And you are not really as smart as you perceive yourself to be.


If you had been reading my posts, you would find I had given the Article and Section of the Constitution that says that. By the way, it's not the 2nd Amendment, but in the body of the Constitution.
Go back and read my posts, then come back and argue if you can. Oh, and get a copy of the Constitution and read it. AND, remember I said ACCESS, not POSSESS. You do know the difference between those two words, right?


BS. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about the right to bear arms other than the 2nd Amendment. Nice try to send me off on a wild goose chase. And if the Constitution only permits access to arms, your arguments for gun ownership are BS as well. Most of your arguments are meant to deflect. Take a stand and stick with instead of deflecting every argument that is made against you.


So you are afraid to read the Constitution since it will prove you wrong? Here's the place to go to if you just don't like to read and be properly informed.
Find a copy of the Constitution. Go to Article I, Section VIII, para 16. You can go read the rest if you want.

I wasn't aware of any arguments against me, other than from those who don't like to be presented with facts that don't support or contradicts their dogma.





16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


Yeah, that is called the National Guard. What that has to do with gun ownership is... nothing.


BoytonBrother - 11/20/2017 at 02:33 PM

quote:
Once a person has been legally adjudged to be mentally ill,


You are right. Iím sold! I no longer worry about a psychopath buying a gun and going on a shooting spree. Problem solved!


BoytonBrother - 11/20/2017 at 04:36 PM

quote:
Fine, let's talk about the mental health issue in America. We all hear about these terrible tragedies but there are smaller tragedies that play out every day all over the country. Simply flip on the local news on any day and there will be at least one, if not many, story or stories that reflect directly on our inability to tackle this problem.


I agree 100%. Americans with mental illnesses cause far more daily damage on top of the sporadic mass shootings. The illnesses lead to dysfunction in households that spreads like a virus. Getting guns is only a small part of the problem. I agree that the main problem is our inability to address it, not the object. I respect guns more than the average Joe, IMO. I own a .38, but only shot it a few times during target practice years ago.

I wish our country was like it was before terrorism and mental illness became as serious of a threat as it is today. But itís not. And since itís very different now, shouldnít we adapt? Should an 18-year old millennial, who canít use a broom, who is bipolar but never been treated, be able to get a gun with ease? Or should he have to demonstrate his knowledge and competence first, like drivers ed? I realize a mass murderer will carry out his act regardless, but we should be at least decreasing his odds of success by making it a longer, more difficult process to obtain the weapon. The more difficult it is, the better chance we have of it maybe not happening. In no way shape or form should this type of person walk into a Walmart and buy a gun - I donít believe thatís what a ďright to bear armsĒ means.

The problem is not the object. I wouldíve thought that those who love and respect the object, like I do, would want to protect it, rather than let a bunch of deranged lunatics, or inexperienced children start misusing it to the point where people are dying at an alarming rate. Letís protect our citizens and guns, by preventing the dopes of our country from ruining a good thing. But any measure to do that is struck down immediately because the NRA has effectively brainwashed people into believing it somehow erodes our rights. Certainly we can figure out a way to make sure the idiots of the world have to demonstrate knowledge and competency first before exercising their 2nd amendment right. Responsible, knowledeable, law abiding citizens will have nothing to fear, just like passing a drivers exam. If anything, maybe the exams prevent idiot parents from leaving it loaded and unlocked for little Billy to grab. We should be evolving - otherwise the jokes on us.


2112 - 11/20/2017 at 05:49 PM

I am currently on vacation in Sweden and have to tell you it is so nice to be in a place with so little gun violence that you can walk into the Royal Palace on a day that the King is hosting a state dinner and not have to walk through a metal detector or have your bags pass through an x-ray machine.


This thread come from : Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band
http://allmanbrothersband.com/

Url of this website:
http://allmanbrothersband.com//modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&fid=127&tid=145553