Loony Lieberals Waste No Time

[Walter]

Feb 17, 2018 10:13:39 GMT -5 roxalot said:

Feb 17, 2018 8:37:45 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

Everyone is a law abiding citizen until they aren't this kid bought his guns perfectly legally in this country

and THAT statement about 'everyone' , is conjecture. This kid gave numerous warnings of his evil intent. He was flagged on a social media outlet for extreme threatening statements. The FBI tool a look at him and waved it off. The system, not law abiding people who own guns, failed. That being said, I will say this , THAT 19 year old should never have been allowed to own a semi-automatic weapon such as an ar-15. He was known to be unstable and a trouble maker. Law enforcement should have people like him under a close watch. They should not have access to weapons such as the ar-15. AS far as I'm concerned, NO one under 21 should be allowed to legally own semi-auto weapons. Single shot rifles or shotguns, fine. but NO SEMI-AUTO ANYTHING. That's my take. BUT, AND I stress BUT, I don't want this to turn in a slippery slope. Laws begin to change and where will it stop..?.. You try to stop me , or any non-felon, law abiding citizen over 21, from owning semi-auto guns, and you will have a problem.

This just in. Temps plunge in hell. Well said, Rox, except for one thing. "...any non-felon, law-abiding citizen over 21..."
I bet I could come up with a dozen scenarios where you would be forced to rethink that blanket statement.
Here's just one. Wife gets slapped around and threatened; she gets a restraining order and moves out. Hubby walks into a gun shop that afternoon. Sell him a gun?

[Deleted]

Feb 17, 2018 11:57:06 GMT -5 Walter said:

Feb 17, 2018 10:13:39 GMT -5 roxalot said:

and THAT statement about 'everyone' , is conjecture. This kid gave numerous warnings of his evil intent. He was flagged on a social media outlet for extreme threatening statements. The FBI tool a look at him and waved it off. The system, not law abiding people who own guns, failed. That being said, I will say this , THAT 19 year old should never have been allowed to own a semi-automatic weapon such as an ar-15. He was known to be unstable and a trouble maker. Law enforcement should have people like him under a close watch. They should not have access to weapons such as the ar-15. AS far as I'm concerned, NO one under 21 should be allowed to legally own semi-auto weapons. Single shot rifles or shotguns, fine. but NO SEMI-AUTO ANYTHING. That's my take. BUT, AND I stress BUT, I don't want this to turn in a slippery slope. Laws begin to change and where will it stop..?.. You try to stop me , or any non-felon, law abiding citizen over 21, from owning semi-auto guns, and you will have a problem.

This just in. Temps plunge in hell. Well said, Rox, except for one thing. "...any non-felon, law-abiding citizen over 21..."
I bet I could come up with a dozen scenarios where you would be forced to rethink that blanket statement.
Here's just one. Wife gets slapped around and threatened; she gets a restraining order and moves out. Hubby walks into a gun shop that afternoon. Sell him a gun?

But she has a R/O on him.  That's law that says he can't go near her.  It's the law.  A LAW has solved the problem.
IIRC, one of the questions on Form 4473 asks if the prospective buyer is under a R/O.  If he says "yes," no sale.  If he says "no," he has lied on the form and broken another law.
Not to mention, in LA at least, if a person is under a R/O, he can NOT possess a gun.   < ---- Read that carefully.
lawcenter.giffords.org/domestic-violence-and-firearms-in-louisiana/

Wifey should have a R/O AND a gun.

Let's get real here.  Most murders involving guns are committed by longtime CRIMINALS, not nutcases.  The Cruz kid is not insane ........   he's an evil little f-er.  He had this killing all planned out, including a very brilliant means of escape.  He made two mistakes.  First, he didn't disguise himself.  Secondly, he didn't ditch the disguise with his weapon and have a change of clothes waiting for him nearby.
He was caught based on his clothing, and he was easily identified by fellow students.

If I had been caught after murdering 17 people and wounding a bunch more, you can bet your sweet ass I too would be claiming "the voices" told me to do it.  Yes, he showed a propensity for being a mean, evil sonofabitch, but LE does not have the manpower to monitor every mean, evil sonofabitch in the U.S.  IF the FBI had talked to him about his "professional school shooter" comment, all he had to say was "Yeah, I said that, and it was in very bad taste.  I'm sorry."  According to everything I have read, authorities had no grounds to take action on him ahead of time.  It is not illegal to be a mean, evil sonofabitch, even a mean, evil sonofabitch with an AR-15.

[Deleted]

Why bother with these fools, Mutt? They never listen, they never change their tune, they scream, cry and shriek to beat everyone down until they get their way. It's the crybaby population. Liberalism promoted by the GDC's in government in complicity with the U.S. media got us here today, and it just keeps escalating. Someday the dam will burst and all hell is going to break out.

[Walter]

Feb 17, 2018 13:26:50 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Feb 17, 2018 11:57:06 GMT -5 Walter said:

This just in. Temps plunge in hell. Well said, Rox, except for one thing. "...any non-felon, law-abiding citizen over 21..."
I bet I could come up with a dozen scenarios where you would be forced to rethink that blanket statement.
Here's just one. Wife gets slapped around and threatened; she gets a restraining order and moves out. Hubby walks into a gun shop that afternoon. Sell him a gun?

But she has a R/O on him.  That's law that says he can't go near her.  It's the law.  A LAW has solved the problem.
IIRC, one of the questions on Form 4473 asks if the prospective buyer is under a R/O.  If he says "yes," no sale.  If he says "no," he has lied on the form and broken another law.
Not to mention, in LA at least, if a person is under a R/O, he can NOT possess a gun.   < ---- Read that carefully.
lawcenter.giffords.org/domestic-violence-and-firearms-in-louisiana/

Wifey should have a R/O AND a gun.

Let's get real here.  Most murders involving guns are committed by longtime CRIMINALS, not nutcases.  The Cruz kid is not insane ........   he's an evil little f-er.  He had this killing all planned out, including a very brilliant means of escape.  He made two mistakes.  First, he didn't disguise himself.  Secondly, he didn't ditch the disguise with his weapon and have a change of clothes waiting for him nearby.
He was caught based on his clothing, and he was easily identified by fellow students.

If I had been caught after murdering 17 people and wounding a bunch more, you can bet your sweet ass I too would be claiming "the voices" told me to do it.  Yes, he showed a propensity for being a mean, evil sonofabitch, but LE does not have the manpower to monitor every mean, evil sonofabitch in the U.S.  IF the FBI had talked to him about his "professional school shooter" comment, all he had to say was "Yeah, I said that, and it was in very bad taste.  I'm sorry."  According to everything I have read, authorities had no grounds to take action on him ahead of time.  It is not illegal to be a mean, evil sonofabitch, even a mean, evil sonofabitch with an AR-15.

You have made my point. Not every law abiding citizen should be able to possess a gun.

[Deleted]

Feb 17, 2018 13:54:10 GMT -5 Walter said:

Feb 17, 2018 13:26:50 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

But she has a R/O on him.  That's law that says he can't go near her.  It's the law.  A LAW has solved the problem.
IIRC, one of the questions on Form 4473 asks if the prospective buyer is under a R/O.  If he says "yes," no sale.  If he says "no," he has lied on the form and broken another law.
Not to mention, in LA at least, if a person is under a R/O, he can NOT possess a gun.   < ---- Read that carefully.
lawcenter.giffords.org/domestic-violence-and-firearms-in-louisiana/

Wifey should have a R/O AND a gun.

Let's get real here.  Most murders involving guns are committed by longtime CRIMINALS, not nutcases.  The Cruz kid is not insane ........   he's an evil little f-er.  He had this killing all planned out, including a very brilliant means of escape.  He made two mistakes.  First, he didn't disguise himself.  Secondly, he didn't ditch the disguise with his weapon and have a change of clothes waiting for him nearby.
He was caught based on his clothing, and he was easily identified by fellow students.

If I had been caught after murdering 17 people and wounding a bunch more, you can bet your sweet ass I too would be claiming "the voices" told me to do it.  Yes, he showed a propensity for being a mean, evil sonofabitch, but LE does not have the manpower to monitor every mean, evil sonofabitch in the U.S.  IF the FBI had talked to him about his "professional school shooter" comment, all he had to say was "Yeah, I said that, and it was in very bad taste.  I'm sorry."  According to everything I have read, authorities had no grounds to take action on him ahead of time.  It is not illegal to be a mean, evil sonofabitch, even a mean, evil sonofabitch with an AR-15.

You have made my point. Not every law abiding citizen should be able to possess a gun.

Wrong. 
Tell the class what lawabiding person should not own or possess a firearm. 

[daleko]

Feb 17, 2018 11:57:06 GMT -5 Walter said:

Hubby walks into a gun shop that afternoon. Sell him a gun?

Depends on the state. But your point is made as 52% of intimate partner disputes that end in death of one or both partners, involve firearms. 15 states require the surrender of a FA if a RO is adjudicated. Might be why they use other options 48% of the time. Don't know. However, and it needs to be better apparently, the NICS system has has stopped over 2.2 million gun sales to prohibited purchasers, including hundreds of thousands of domestic abusers.

[oujour76]

Feb 17, 2018 11:57:06 GMT -5 Walter said:

I bet I could come up with a dozen scenarios where you would be forced to rethink that blanket statement.
Here's just one. Wife gets slapped around and threatened; she gets a restraining order and moves out. Hubby walks into a gun shop that afternoon. Sell him a gun?

How would the gun shop know about a restraining order? Anyway, your comment reminded me of a Simpsons episode. No matter your politics, this should make you laugh.

[Deleted]

Feb 17, 2018 13:59:41 GMT -5 daleko said:

Feb 17, 2018 11:57:06 GMT -5 Walter said:

Hubby walks into a gun shop that afternoon. Sell him a gun?

Depends on the state. But your point is made as 52% of intimate partner disputes that end in death of one or both partners, involve firearms.
But NOT AR-15's, which is what this latest lieberal outburst is about.

15 states require the surrender of a FA if a RO is adjudicated. Might be why they use other options 48% of the time. Don't know. However, and it needs to be better apparently, the NICS system has has stopped over 2.2 million gun sales to prohibited purchasers, including hundreds of thousands of domestic abusers.

[daleko]

Feb 17, 2018 15:32:15 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Feb 17, 2018 11:57:06 GMT -5 Walter said:

I bet I could come up with a dozen scenarios where you would be forced to rethink that blanket statement.
Here's just one. Wife gets slapped around and threatened; she gets a restraining order and moves out. Hubby walks into a gun shop that afternoon. Sell him a gun?

How would the gun shop know about a restraining order?

Two issues at play in situations that involve this and mental issue issues. Communication between the systems and maybe secrecy laws. The second involves both. If the courts enter it into the system, the FBI DB will pick it up. Unlike in FL, it's not a human making a decision. If it's entered, it'll pop a delay or a deny. Every store should be doing a BG check. The only if is, if the courts enter the judgement into the NICS system. And I'm not even remotely knowledgeable about their process. How long between the decision and the DB pickup? Don't know. I would thing the FBI DB would update in real time. 

[oujour76]

Feb 17, 2018 17:50:13 GMT -5 daleko said:

Feb 17, 2018 15:32:15 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

How would the gun shop know about a restraining order?

Two issues at play in situations that involve this and mental issue issues. Communication between the systems and maybe secrecy laws. The second involves both. If the courts enter it into the system, the FBI DB will pick it up. Unlike in FL, it's not a human making a decision. If it's entered, it'll pop a delay or a deny. Every store should be doing a BG check. The only if is, if the courts enter the judgement into the NICS system. And I'm not even remotely knowledgeable about their process. How long between the decision and the DB pickup? Don't know. I would thing the FBI DB would update in real time. 

Got it, thanks.

[Walter]

Feb 17, 2018 13:56:07 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Feb 17, 2018 13:54:10 GMT -5 Walter said:

You have made my point. Not every law abiding citizen should be able to possess a gun.

Wrong. 
Tell the class what lawabiding person should not own or possess a firearm. 

IN CA, most folks who are found to be mentally incompetent, drug addicted, a danger to themselves or others, under court supervision either for mental issues or stuff like a restraining order, have made threats to licensed shrinks or LEOs, or have been dishonorably discharged from the military.

It is possible that none of those folks have actually broken any laws.

[Deleted]

Feb 17, 2018 19:06:16 GMT -5 Walter said:

Feb 17, 2018 13:56:07 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Wrong. 
Tell the class what lawabiding person should not own or possess a firearm. 

IN CA, most folks who are found to be mentally incompetent, drug addicted, a danger to themselves or others, under court supervision either for mental issues or stuff like a restraining order, have made threats to licensed shrinks or LEOs, or have been dishonorably discharged from the military.

It is possible that none of those folks have actually broken any laws.

If they have been FOUND to have mental issues, the law already bars them from owning firearms.
So ........ drug addicts should not have the right to VOTE either.  I agree with you.  Drug addiction is a disease.  Now you want to discriminate against people with a disease.
It's not illegal to make threats to LEOs.  If it were, I would have locked up a whole shitload of people.
You better post a link to whatever law you are referring to.

How will any of that stop mental cases from procuring stolen guns, or "liberating" them from people who own them legally?

You like the idea of a police state, don't you?   "We THINK you might be bad, so we are going to violate your rights."
Uh-huh.  That's sad.

[Walter]

Feb 17, 2018 20:53:11 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Feb 17, 2018 19:06:16 GMT -5 Walter said:

IN CA, most folks who are found to be mentally incompetent, drug addicted, a danger to themselves or others, under court supervision either for mental issues or stuff like a restraining order, have made threats to licensed shrinks or LEOs, or have been dishonorably discharged from the military.

It is possible that none of those folks have actually broken any laws.

If they have been FOUND to have mental issues, the law already bars them from owning firearms.
So ........ drug addicts should not have the right to VOTE either.  I agree with you.  Drug addiction is a disease.  Now you want to discriminate against people with a disease.
It's not illegal to make threats to LEOs.  If it were, I would have locked up a whole shitload of people.
You better post a link to whatever law you are referring to.

How will any of that stop mental cases from procuring stolen guns, or "liberating" them from people who own them legally?

You like the idea of a police state, don't you?   "We THINK you might be bad, so we are going to violate your rights."
Uh-huh.  That's sad.

I gave you examples and now you are quibbling.
The fact is laws exist that stop law abiding citizens to legally buy guns.

[roxalot]

Feb 17, 2018 11:57:06 GMT -5 Walter said:

Feb 17, 2018 10:13:39 GMT -5 roxalot said:

and THAT statement about 'everyone' , is conjecture. This kid gave numerous warnings of his evil intent. He was flagged on a social media outlet for extreme threatening statements. The FBI tool a look at him and waved it off. The system, not law abiding people who own guns, failed. That being said, I will say this , THAT 19 year old should never have been allowed to own a semi-automatic weapon such as an ar-15. He was known to be unstable and a trouble maker. Law enforcement should have people like him under a close watch. They should not have access to weapons such as the ar-15. AS far as I'm concerned, NO one under 21 should be allowed to legally own semi-auto weapons. Single shot rifles or shotguns, fine. but NO SEMI-AUTO ANYTHING. That's my take. BUT, AND I stress BUT, I don't want this to turn in a slippery slope. Laws begin to change and where will it stop..?.. You try to stop me , or any non-felon, law abiding citizen over 21, from owning semi-auto guns, and you will have a problem.

This just in. Temps plunge in hell. Well said, Rox, except for one thing. "...any non-felon, law-abiding citizen over 21..."
I bet I could come up with a dozen scenarios where you would be forced to rethink that blanket statement.
Here's just one. Wife gets slapped around and threatened; she gets a restraining order and moves out. Hubby walks into a gun shop that afternoon. Sell him a gun?

well, you could instead sell him a machete.. or a hammer... or a large knife... or a baseball bat... or you could sell him a pressure cooker so he could blow up the wife's whole neighborhood... just make sure you sell the wife a nice revolver. A Smith and Wesson five shot .38 should do the trick. You know, in case your imagined 'hubby gone nuts' scenario comes to actually be correct.

[Deleted]

Feb 17, 2018 22:46:00 GMT -5 Walter said:

Feb 17, 2018 20:53:11 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

If they have been FOUND to have mental issues, the law already bars them from owning firearms.
So ........ drug addicts should not have the right to VOTE either.  I agree with you.  Drug addiction is a disease.  Now you want to discriminate against people with a disease.
It's not illegal to make threats to LEOs.  If it were, I would have locked up a whole shitload of people.
You better post a link to whatever law you are referring to.

How will any of that stop mental cases from procuring stolen guns, or "liberating" them from people who own them legally?

You like the idea of a police state, don't you?   "We THINK you might be bad, so we are going to violate your rights."
Uh-huh.  That's sad.

I gave you examples and now you are quibbling.
The fact is laws exist that stop law abiding citizens to legally buy guns.

So how does that stop criminals from getting guns?
Thanks for admitting that gun laws only hurt the lawabidng citizens.