|
Post by palealeman on Nov 6, 2017 9:56:22 GMT -5
No link, since I'm guessing everyone is now familiar with this story.
Gunman enters a church with a rifle that was legally purchased and proceeds to kill at least 26 people, including 8 members of one family, and injure at least 20 more. Prior air force vet, dishonorably discharged, not too muich else known at this time other than friends and family say (as generally expected) that this is totally out of character.
Why does this keep happening? I generally don't have a problem with the Second Amendment or the possession of weapons, but we're seeing too many of these incidents. Should there be limits on the number/type of weapons that a person can possess? Should there be more thorough screening?
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 6, 2017 10:20:17 GMT -5
No link, since I'm guessing everyone is now familiar with this story. Gunman enters a church with a rifle that was legally purchased and proceeds to kill at least 26 people, including 8 members of one family, and injure at least 20 more. Prior air force vet, dishonorably discharged, not too muich else known at this time other than friends and family say (as generally expected) that this is totally out of character. Why does this keep happening? I generally don't have a problem with the Second Amendment or the possession of weapons, but we're seeing too many of these incidents. Should there be limits on the number/type of weapons that a person can possess? Should there be more thorough screening? It’s problematic to suggest that “this keeps happening.” Each one of these shooters has his own motivations, and those need to be understood. So far as I know, we don’t know if this was personal against someone in the church. Or this guy had a beef with Baptists/Christians. Or he just wanted to be famous. Or something else entirely. Going after the weapons is a non-starter. There are too many to ever round them up, and even if we could round them all up, people intent on killing will find other ways.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 6, 2017 10:33:29 GMT -5
No link, since I'm guessing everyone is now familiar with this story. Gunman enters a church with a rifle that was legally purchased and proceeds to kill at least 26 people, including 8 members of one family, and injure at least 20 more. Prior air force vet, dishonorably discharged, not too muich else known at this time other than friends and family say (as generally expected) that this is totally out of character. Why does this keep happening? I generally don't have a problem with the Second Amendment or the possession of weapons, but we're seeing too many of these incidents. Should there be limits on the number/type of weapons that a person can possess? Should there be more thorough screening? How do you know it was "legally purchased"? Despite the fact that he received a court martial, and was drummed out of the service for domestic violence? I guess you didn't know that that prohibits one from legally buying a firearm. Add that to the infinity of things you have no idea about. It keeps happening because the Party of the KKK has put a target on all Americans, especially Christians, and made it acceptable to simply kill anyone that doesn't agree with them. You, and they, pray for, and incite incidents like this because it furthers their Communist agenda.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 6, 2017 10:34:31 GMT -5
No link, since I'm guessing everyone is now familiar with this story. Gunman enters a church with a rifle that was legally purchased and proceeds to kill at least 26 people, including 8 members of one family, and injure at least 20 more. Prior air force vet, dishonorably discharged, not too muich else known at this time other than friends and family say (as generally expected) that this is totally out of character. Why does this keep happening? I generally don't have a problem with the Second Amendment or the possession of weapons, but we're seeing too many of these incidents. Should there be limits on the number/type of weapons that a person can possess? Should there be more thorough screening? It’s problematic to suggest that “this keeps happening.” Each one of these shooters has his own motivations, and those need to be understood. So far as I know, we don’t know if this was personal against someone in the church. Or this guy had a beef with Baptists/Christians. Or he just wanted to be famous. Or something else entirely. Going after the weapons is a non-starter. There are too many to ever round them up, and even if we could round them all up, people intent on killing will find other ways. Not to mention that pesky 2A that gets in the way of the Party of the KKK's agenda of total disarmament. Except for their personal body guards, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 6, 2017 10:47:04 GMT -5
It’s problematic to suggest that “this keeps happening.” Each one of these shooters has his own motivations, and those need to be understood. So far as I know, we don’t know if this was personal against someone in the church. Or this guy had a beef with Baptists/Christians. Or he just wanted to be famous. Or something else entirely. Going after the weapons is a non-starter. There are too many to ever round them up, and even if we could round them all up, people intent on killing will find other ways. Not to mention that pesky 2A that gets in the way of the Party of the KKK's agenda of total disarmament. Except for their personal body guards, of course. In theory, Congress could repeal it. The problem is, it wouldn’t do any good. Knives, bombs and guns are simple tools. By all appearances, this guy was armed in spite of the law. One more law wouldn’t have stopped him.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 6, 2017 11:18:27 GMT -5
Not to mention that pesky 2A that gets in the way of the Party of the KKK's agenda of total disarmament. Except for their personal body guards, of course. In theory, Congress could repeal it. The problem is, it wouldn’t do any good. Knives, bombs and guns are simple tools. By all appearances, this guy was armed in spite of the law. One more law wouldn’t have stopped him. No, Congress can't repeal it. They can vote for a repeal amendment, but it has to be ratified by 2/3 of the states. I seriously doubt that they can get that many states to commit suicide.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Nov 6, 2017 11:35:36 GMT -5
No link, since I'm guessing everyone is now familiar with this story. Gunman enters a church with a rifle that was legally purchased and proceeds to kill at least 26 people, including 8 members of one family, and injure at least 20 more. Prior air force vet, dishonorably discharged, not too muich else known at this time other than friends and family say (as generally expected) that this is totally out of character. Why does this keep happening? I generally don't have a problem with the Second Amendment or the possession of weapons, but we're seeing too many of these incidents. Should there be limits on the number/type of weapons that a person can possess? Should there be more thorough screening? It’s problematic to suggest that “this keeps happening.” Each one of these shooters has his own motivations, and those need to be understood. So far as I know, we don’t know if this was personal against someone in the church. Or this guy had a beef with Baptists/Christians. Or he just wanted to be famous. Or something else entirely. Going after the weapons is a non-starter. There are too many to ever round them up, and even if we could round them all up, people intent on killing will find other ways. But it does keep happening, RJ. That's the problem. What I understand you to be saying is that there's no common thread among these shooters, no so real way to determine why and what might be able to be done to prevent these sort of incidents. We don't know much about this guy yet. We don't know much about the Las Vegas shooter, either. But does that mean that we just throw in the towel? Is that your attempt at a solution? This guy passed a background check. I understand that. But a background check, as I understand, is pretty much a criminal history check, and not everything gets recorded there. Should there be a more thorough check? "Limits" on gun ownership/possession can take several forms. I agree that any efforts at collection would probably be fruitless. But putting limits on what could be possessed after a certain date might be a start (though, as I type and think, I doubt it would be possible to enforce something like this either). But we have a problem, and every time it happens we all say "Oh, no, what can be done to avoid this in the future," and then absolutely nothing happens . . . until the next incident a few days or weeks later. I've seen suggestions that we repeal the Second Amendment. I doubt that would ever happen. But could there be limits on that Amendment that everyone could agree on? Stronger background checks? Limits on types of weapons or types of ammunition?
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Nov 6, 2017 11:46:05 GMT -5
Not to mention that pesky 2A that gets in the way of the Party of the KKK's agenda of total disarmament. Except for their personal body guards, of course. In theory, Congress could repeal it. The problem is, it wouldn’t do any good. Knives, bombs and guns are simple tools. By all appearances, this guy was armed in spite of the law. One more law wouldn’t have stopped him. Actually, RJ, -- and I didn't know this either -- no amendment can be repealed except through another amendment -- think Prohibition -- passed by Congress and the required number of states The guy possessed the weapon legally. He bought it and passed a background check
|
|
|
Post by bobloblaw on Nov 6, 2017 12:07:29 GMT -5
It’s problematic to suggest that “this keeps happening.” Each one of these shooters has his own motivations, and those need to be understood. So far as I know, we don’t know if this was personal against someone in the church. Or this guy had a beef with Baptists/Christians. Or he just wanted to be famous. Or something else entirely. Going after the weapons is a non-starter. There are too many to ever round them up, and even if we could round them all up, people intent on killing will find other ways. But it does keep happening, RJ. That's the problem. What I understand you to be saying is that there's no common thread among these shooters, no so real way to determine why and what might be able to be done to prevent these sort of incidents. We don't know much about this guy yet. We don't know much about the Las Vegas shooter, either. But does that mean that we just throw in the towel? Is that your attempt at a solution? This guy passed a background check. I understand that. But a background check, as I understand, is pretty much a criminal history check, and not everything gets recorded there. Should there be a more thorough check? "Limits" on gun ownership/possession can take several forms. I agree that any efforts at collection would probably be fruitless. But putting limits on what could be possessed after a certain date might be a start (though, as I type and think, I doubt it would be possible to enforce something like this either). But we have a problem, and every time it happens we all say "Oh, no, what can be done to avoid this in the future," and then absolutely nothing happens . . . until the next incident a few days or weeks later. I've seen suggestions that we repeal the Second Amendment. I doubt that would ever happen. But could there be limits on that Amendment that everyone could agree on? Stronger background checks? Limits on types of weapons or types of ammunition? This guy was busted for beating his wife. In Maryland this precludes a person from possessing firearms (ask Ode2Kongo). I'm not sure about Texas.
|
|
|
Post by bobloblaw on Nov 6, 2017 12:17:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 6, 2017 12:19:27 GMT -5
It’s problematic to suggest that “this keeps happening.” Each one of these shooters has his own motivations, and those need to be understood. So far as I know, we don’t know if this was personal against someone in the church. Or this guy had a beef with Baptists/Christians. Or he just wanted to be famous. Or something else entirely. Going after the weapons is a non-starter. There are too many to ever round them up, and even if we could round them all up, people intent on killing will find other ways. But it does keep happening, RJ. That's the problem. What I understand you to be saying is that there's no common thread among these shooters, no so real way to determine why and what might be able to be done to prevent these sort of incidents. We don't know much about this guy yet. We don't know much about the Las Vegas shooter, either. But does that mean that we just throw in the towel? Is that your attempt at a solution? This guy passed a background check. I understand that. But a background check, as I understand, is pretty much a criminal history check, and not everything gets recorded there. Should there be a more thorough check? "Limits" on gun ownership/possession can take several forms. I agree that any efforts at collection would probably be fruitless. But putting limits on what could be possessed after a certain date might be a start (though, as I type and think, I doubt it would be possible to enforce something like this either). But we have a problem, and every time it happens we all say "Oh, no, what can be done to avoid this in the future," and then absolutely nothing happens . . . until the next incident a few days or weeks later. I've seen suggestions that we repeal the Second Amendment. I doubt that would ever happen. But could there be limits on that Amendment that everyone could agree on? Stronger background checks? Limits on types of weapons or types of ammunition? All of the “sensible” checks are already in place. A conviction of a violent crime is a disqualifier. As is a finding of mental incompetence. Beyond that, and you’re taking away rights without due process. Using terror watch lists, for example, is a fantastic way for the bureaucrats who keep those lists to screw with people. How do you think Teddy Kennedy got on them? Perhaps I need to clarify something: mass shootings are not A problem. They are SEVERAL problems. Some of which we don’t understand well enough to solve. The Las Vegas shooter being Exhibit A. No criminal history. No mental history. No apparent ideological issues. We don’t know his problem, so we don’t know how to solve it. What’s more, one of the problems is jihadism. This is probably entirely unsolvable in the current political climate because no one has the stomach to dig into the coontry’s Mosques to go looking for extremists. And even if they did, we’re back to how do you disarm someone without using due process? One potential avenue is to acknowledge that foreign nationals are not automatically entitled to enter the US, and do not enjoy all of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution, including the 2A. And then we work harder to not hand out citizenship to everyone who asks for it. Especially folks from countries with a jihadi problem. You’ll of course tell me that wouldn’t have stopped anyone, and you’d be right. But that’s the same argument the NRA uses to argue against other new forms of gun control. Crappy/corrupt local government is another problem. This is the main source of the over-criminalization problem that leads so many minority communities to feel oppressed. This is ultimately what got Freddy Gray (excessive knife control laws) and Eric Garner (stupid cigarette taxes) killed. The solution to this problem is less Democrats running cities, and less excessive government regulation.
|
|
|
Post by bobloblaw on Nov 6, 2017 17:55:53 GMT -5
A conviction for a violent crime doesn't automatically disqualify a person. It depends on where they live.
You can be nuttier then a squirrel turd and still buy a firearm. Look at all those people with the fake PTSD running around with firearms. They shouldn't be allowed to do that.
|
|
|
Post by bobloblaw on Nov 6, 2017 17:58:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bobloblaw on Nov 6, 2017 18:04:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bobloblaw on Nov 6, 2017 18:32:18 GMT -5
LOL The Angry Drunken Dwarf just Shìt on my Misshappen Little Head and twisted my Crooked Mangina again.
|
|
|
Post by bobloblaw on Nov 6, 2017 18:37:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bobloblaw on Nov 6, 2017 18:47:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bobloblaw on Nov 6, 2017 18:55:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 7, 2017 7:55:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 7, 2017 10:09:49 GMT -5
It’s problematic to suggest that “this keeps happening.” Each one of these shooters has his own motivations, and those need to be understood. So far as I know, we don’t know if this was personal against someone in the church. Or this guy had a beef with Baptists/Christians. Or he just wanted to be famous. Or something else entirely. Going after the weapons is a non-starter. There are too many to ever round them up, and even if we could round them all up, people intent on killing will find other ways. But it does keep happening, RJ. That's the problem. What I understand you to be saying is that there's no common thread among these shooters, no so real way to determine why and what might be able to be done to prevent these sort of incidents. We don't know much about this guy yet. We don't know much about the Las Vegas shooter, either. But does that mean that we just throw in the towel? Is that your attempt at a solution? This guy passed a background check. I understand that. But a background check, as I understand, is pretty much a criminal history check, and not everything gets recorded there. Should there be a more thorough check? "Limits" on gun ownership/possession can take several forms. I agree that any efforts at collection would probably be fruitless. But putting limits on what could be possessed after a certain date might be a start (though, as I type and think, I doubt it would be possible to enforce something like this either). But we have a problem, and every time it happens we all say "Oh, no, what can be done to avoid this in the future," and then absolutely nothing happens . . . until the next incident a few days or weeks later. I've seen suggestions that we repeal the Second Amendment. I doubt that would ever happen. But could there be limits on that Amendment that everyone could agree on? Stronger background checks? Limits on types of weapons or types of ammunition? This guy has a history of violence. He was convicted of domestic violence by the Air Force, and they failed to record it in the system, so he was able to buy firearms. That was the incompetence of your vaunted Federal government. What laws can we pass that would stop this sort of insanity, especially when those tasked with enforcing those laws ignore them? Until we do know enough about either one, anything we do would be pointless. Just another attack on the liberty of the law abiding. Since there are legal restrictions on who can vote, should there be more thorough checks on people before they are allowed to vote? How about a mental health check, which would weed out anyone that would vote Democrat, because that is a sure sign of mental illness? Should we limit how many books one can own? How about what web sites one can visit? Do you support limits on who an individual can associate with, and when he can do so? How about we limit petitioning the government? Limit what one can write? We have a problem and it's the war on Christianity. Christianity defined the morals of this society until the Marxists got enough power to start removing it from the public sphere. When I was growing up, the only question asked when we stored our shotguns or .22s in our lockers at school was "is it unloaded?" We didn't have these issues until the Left destroyed all moral direction, and replaced God with video games, pornography, and the parasite mentality so obnoxiously on display today. You keep whining that conservatives want to "take us back to the 1950's", but we didn't have brain damaged, parasitic animals shooting up churches just because he doesn't like his MIL. The Left, specifically the Party of the KKK, has given license to these lunatics by their constant denigration, hatred, and bombastic tirades against Christians specifically, and all religion, except Islam, generally. They can't abide any thought that doesn't further their depraved, dehumanizing agenda, and attempts to install a dictatorship here.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 7, 2017 10:10:36 GMT -5
In theory, Congress could repeal it. The problem is, it wouldn’t do any good. Knives, bombs and guns are simple tools. By all appearances, this guy was armed in spite of the law. One more law wouldn’t have stopped him. Actually, RJ, -- and I didn't know this either -- no amendment can be repealed except through another amendment -- think Prohibition -- passed by Congress and the required number of states The guy possessed the weapon legally. He bought it and passed a background check Just add that to the myriad things you don't know.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 7, 2017 10:13:11 GMT -5
But it does keep happening, RJ. That's the problem. What I understand you to be saying is that there's no common thread among these shooters, no so real way to determine why and what might be able to be done to prevent these sort of incidents. We don't know much about this guy yet. We don't know much about the Las Vegas shooter, either. But does that mean that we just throw in the towel? Is that your attempt at a solution? This guy passed a background check. I understand that. But a background check, as I understand, is pretty much a criminal history check, and not everything gets recorded there. Should there be a more thorough check? "Limits" on gun ownership/possession can take several forms. I agree that any efforts at collection would probably be fruitless. But putting limits on what could be possessed after a certain date might be a start (though, as I type and think, I doubt it would be possible to enforce something like this either). But we have a problem, and every time it happens we all say "Oh, no, what can be done to avoid this in the future," and then absolutely nothing happens . . . until the next incident a few days or weeks later. I've seen suggestions that we repeal the Second Amendment. I doubt that would ever happen. But could there be limits on that Amendment that everyone could agree on? Stronger background checks? Limits on types of weapons or types of ammunition? This guy was busted for beating his wife. In Maryland this precludes a person from possessing firearms (ask Ode2Kongo). I'm not sure about Texas. Federal law prohibits it. Has for about 15 years. It's called the Laughtenberg (sp?) Amendment. I think it's a totally unConstitutional law, because it applies a Federal punishment to a state crime, and it is retroactive. However, it is the law. The problem is, your sainted Federal government failed to record his conviction in NCIS, so he was allowed to buy the firearms. And these are who you want to control every facet of every life from cradle to grave.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 7, 2017 10:16:25 GMT -5
A conviction for a violent crime doesn't automatically disqualify a person. It depends on where they live. You can be nuttier then a squirrel turd and still buy a firearm. Look at all those people with the fake PTSD running around with firearms. They shouldn't be allowed to do that. You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you? Conviction of a violent crime precludes firearms ownership AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. It's a Federal law. If the PTSD is fake, then there is no reason for them not to have a firearm. If PTSD is real, and not within a set parameter, they are also not prohibited. Of course, since you never got any closer to real combat than playing video games, you have no idea about any of it.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 7, 2017 10:18:02 GMT -5
Why should he? What he should be talking about is Democrat control. A complete background check before any Democrat is allowed to go on TV, write any of the insanity they constantly spew, or enter Congress. Every time. No exceptions. That would go much further to stopping the insanity than any "gun" control law.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 7, 2017 10:18:35 GMT -5
What, Waters, Schumer and Pelosi now have a show on Fox? When did that happen?
|
|