|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 7, 2017 10:19:19 GMT -5
He wasn't able to legally buy them because of his conviction on domestic violence. Period. Regardless of his discharge. |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Nov 7, 2017 10:24:29 GMT -5
The problem, RJ, is the definition of "record keeper." Is it a person? Agency? In general use, it refers to an agency.
And you miss the point earlier. You say that each incident of mass murder is different and must be judged differently -- different shooters, different motivations, different mental states. To an extent, you're accurate. But you miss the big picture, the similarity among all of these incidents: assault weapons. Why are they needed at all? Why did the Texas shooter have 15 30-round magazines (450 rounds)? You're not going hunting for deer with that many rounds.
After the Las Vegas shootings, there was a lot of talk about bump stocks and whether they should be outlawed or not. But it's been only talk, and not much of that
We've had bans on assault weapons. We've had limits on magazines and how many rounds they can hold. Maybe it's time to realize that assault weapons have no real practical purpose except for a military or police unit. Maybe it's time to try to get rid of them altogether.
Of course, the NRA would oppose any such move, and therefore a majority of legislators would also oppose such a move. But something has to be done. We have too many of these incidents, and we're starting to accept them as status quo. That says something about our Country, something that I don't want to hear.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 7, 2017 10:52:38 GMT -5
The problem, RJ, is the definition of "record keeper." Is it a person? Agency? In general use, it refers to an agency. That can be defined in the law. For most cases a clerk of the court would be the responsible party. We’re not even making our existing gun laws work. Just this step would have made it harder for this shooter and Dylan Roof to obtain a gun. What you’re talking about is banning guns because they look scary to you. That’s just childish. Especially given that it was just this sort of weapon that stopped the shooter in Texas. This was tried before, too. It didn’t accomplish anything. |
|
|
|
Post by bobloblaw on Nov 7, 2017 10:55:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bobloblaw on Nov 7, 2017 11:01:21 GMT -5
What, Waters, Schumer and Pelosi now have a show on Fox? When did that happen? No, I'm talking about Screech the Weather Monkey, The Bimbo and the Dumb Jock on "Fox and Friends" |
|
|
|
Post by bobloblaw on Nov 7, 2017 11:02:24 GMT -5
What, Waters, Schumer and Pelosi now have a show on Fox? When did that happen? No, I'm talking about Screech the Weather Monkey, The Bimbo and the Dumb Jock on "Fox and Friends" Translation: I'm talking about my Smelly Crooked Mangina |
|
|
|
Post by bobloblaw on Nov 7, 2017 11:36:07 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 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. Revisionist History. There were mass shooters back in the '40's and 50's www.smithsonianmag.com/history/story-first-mass-murder-us-history-180956927/ |
|
|
|
Post by bobloblaw on Nov 7, 2017 11:39:03 GMT -5
He wasn't able to legally buy them because of his conviction on domestic violence. Period. Regardless of his discharge. There's plenty ways around it. We've had convicted murderers get their guns back. www.vpc.org/studies/felons.htm |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 7, 2017 11:44:57 GMT -5
People convicted of domestic violence are generally prohibited from owning or carrying a gun. Just like this guy. There are three ways these people get guns: either the authorities fail to report the disqualification to the appropriate authorities (this case, and Dylan Roof), or the weapons are stolen or purchased on the black market. Laws do not (and can not) prevent people bent on criminal violence from obtaining a gun. Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. Laws, can however, prevent innocent people from defending themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Nov 7, 2017 12:30:01 GMT -5
The problem, RJ, is the definition of "record keeper." Is it a person? Agency? In general use, it refers to an agency. That can be defined in the law. For most cases a clerk of the court would be the responsible party. We’re not even making our existing gun laws work. Just this step would have made it harder for this shooter and Dylan Roof to obtain a gun. What you’re talking about is banning guns because they look scary to you. That’s just childish. Especially given that it was just this sort of weapon that stopped the shooter in Texas. This was tried before, too. It didn’t accomplish anything. No, RJ, not because they look scary, because they're not needed in the general population. I've fired an M16, I've qualified with an M16. I know what they can do. Why does anyone need an assault rifle? Home protection? You're better off with a shotgun, and you know that. And I'm not sure that another weapon did stop the shooter. He left the church and was fired at. Looks like he may have been leaving. What stopped him was an apparently self-inflicted gunshot wound to his head. Of course, as I've said, the NRA will oppose anything that even remotely seems like common sense, and since the politicians in DC are so fearful of the NRA and most are in the NRA's pocket, nothing will happen again . . . and again . . . and again . . . . |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 7, 2017 12:35:27 GMT -5
He wasn't able to legally buy them because of his conviction on domestic violence. Period. Regardless of his discharge. There's plenty ways around it. We've had convicted murderers get their guns back. www.vpc.org/studies/felons.htmWell, there USED to be ways to get around it. 30 years ago. Still not quite sure why tax evasion should prevent a felon who served their time from being able to purchase a gun. |
|
|
|
Post by bobloblaw on Nov 7, 2017 12:38:00 GMT -5
Oregon allows a person who has been found guilty of a felony by reason of insanity to apply for a gun license (Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.250(1)(c)
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 7, 2017 12:47:33 GMT -5
That can be defined in the law. For most cases a clerk of the court would be the responsible party. We’re not even making our existing gun laws work. Just this step would have made it harder for this shooter and Dylan Roof to obtain a gun. What you’re talking about is banning guns because they look scary to you. That’s just childish. Especially given that it was just this sort of weapon that stopped the shooter in Texas. This was tried before, too. It didn’t accomplish anything. No, RJ, not because they look scary, because they're not needed in the general population. I've fired an M16, I've qualified with an M16. I know what they can do. Why does anyone need an assault rifle? Home protection? You're better off with a shotgun, and you know that. And I'm not sure that another weapon did stop the shooter. He left the church and was fired at. Looks like he may have been leaving. What stopped him was an apparently self-inflicted gunshot wound to his head. Of course, as I've said, the NRA will oppose anything that even remotely seems like common sense, and since the politicians in DC are so fearful of the NRA and most are in the NRA's pocket, nothing will happen again . . . and again . . . and again . . . . I see. So because you feel something is “not needed” there shouldn’t be a problem criminalizing it? Look, even if someone just gets a thrill from taking it to a range and shredding some targets, unless there’s a compelling reason (like a mental disorder or a felony conviction) this is allegedly still a free country. Shall we criminalize super cars like Ferrari’s and Porches too? They’re also not “necessary” and have been known to kill people. I don’t think the autopsy has been completed. However the reports are that he had three bullet wounds. Yes, one was apparently a self inflicted shot to the head. The other two likely came from the neighbor with the AR-15 that sent him running from the scene. |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 7, 2017 12:53:29 GMT -5
Oregon allows a person who has been found guilty of a felony by reason of insanity to apply for a gun license (Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.250(1)(c) Wrong-o www.oregonlaws.org/ors/166.250Oregon prohibits such a person from obtaining a gun license. |
|
|
|
Post by bobloblaw on Nov 7, 2017 13:06:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 7, 2017 13:15:40 GMT -5
Again, wrong-o. Section 166.273 allows a person who was barred from possessing a firearm to petition the state psychiatric review board for relief. The board reviews the case, and makes a determination as to whether the petitioner is a menace or not. By the way, anyone, anywhere can “apply for a gun license” the issue is whether or not the license is granted. |
|
|
|
Post by bobloblaw on Nov 7, 2017 13:16:02 GMT -5
Oh Gawd. Another miserable day of getting my Sorry Ass handed to me. Why couldn't Fugly Mommy have just aborted my Worthless Ass??
|
|
|
|
Post by bobloblaw on Nov 7, 2017 14:05:15 GMT -5
The answer is to repeal and rewrite the 2nd Amendment. It was obviously written by a bunch of old and drunk white men. That was the same convention that gave us the 3/5th's Compromise. Obviously they weren't thinking straight.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobloblaw on Nov 7, 2017 16:32:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bobloblaw on Nov 7, 2017 16:38:00 GMT -5
LMAO I escape from a mental institution every night. Fugly Mommy takes me to the Headshrinker Hospital every time the Ugandan Blutards show up.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobloblaw on Nov 7, 2017 16:40:52 GMT -5
LMAO I escape from a mental institution every night. Fugly Mommy takes me to the Headshrinker Hospital every time the Ugandan Blutards show up. Right on cue here comes Ode2KongoManny's obsession with his mother. I pity that bartender. Can you imagine having to put up with that every day? |
|
|
|
Post by bobloblaw on Nov 7, 2017 16:51:04 GMT -5
You got that right VoicesInMyHead. Can you imagine having to put up with us every day?? Our Smelly Mangina alone is enough to Gag a Maggot...
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 7, 2017 18:55:31 GMT -5
In this case, the system effed up bad. Apparently no one made the required reporting. So let's fix the system, and provide criminal penalties when someone forgets to make these reports. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 7, 2017 21:08:56 GMT -5
The problem, RJ, is the definition of "record keeper." Is it a person? Agency? In general use, it refers to an agency. And you miss the point earlier. You say that each incident of mass murder is different and must be judged differently -- different shooters, different motivations, different mental states. To an extent, you're accurate. But you miss the big picture, the similarity among all of these incidents: assault weapons. Why are they needed at all? Why did the Texas shooter have 15 30-round magazines (450 rounds)? You're not going hunting for deer with that many rounds. After the Las Vegas shootings, there was a lot of talk about bump stocks and whether they should be outlawed or not. But it's been only talk, and not much of that We've had bans on assault weapons. We've had limits on magazines and how many rounds they can hold. Maybe it's time to realize that assault weapons have no real practical purpose except for a military or police unit. Maybe it's time to try to get rid of them altogether. Of course, the NRA would oppose any such move, and therefore a majority of legislators would also oppose such a move. But something has to be done. We have too many of these incidents, and we're starting to accept them as status quo. That says something about our Country, something that I don't want to hear. There has yet to be an "assault weapon" used in any mass shooting. When an AR platform is used, it's a semi automatic firearm, no different from a Winchester or Ruger semi auto rifle. You have no idea what you are talking about. Learn something about firearms before you make even more of a fool of yourself. How, exactly, are you going to stop someone from buying magazines? Put a serial number on each one, force a background check for every magazine? If he's not planning a mass shooting, which almost no one except Democrats do, why is it important how many he has? "Bump stocks" are almost useless for anyone to hit anything with. The reason that the military changed the M16 from full auto to 3 round burst was because of the waste of ammo on full auto. You can't control it much beyond "spray and pray". Same thing with a "bump stock". It's a curiosity, and probably saved as many lives as it took in Las Vegas, because he couldn't control his firearm. If you ban them for civilians, you ban them for the military and police. We just find out that it was your government saints that allowed him to buy his firearms, and now you want them, and only them, to have effective firearms? No wonder you support the Party of the KKK. Besides, the SCOTUS, in Miller, I think it was 1938, declared "firearms in common use in the military" to be the firearms primarily protected by the 2A. The NRA is simply an association of like minded people. It would be far more effective to simply ban the Democrat Party, who is responsible for making churches targets of the insane, the terminally mad, and other Leftists. Their rhetoric against anything Christian especially, but any religion except Islam is what's giving these lunatics permission to shoot up churches, and country music festivals, since they have decided that most country music fans must be Trump voters, and therefore not human. We have too many of these incidents because the Left has succeeded in degrading our moral culture over the decades to the point that far too many young people don't see others as people, and therefore expendable. Just like the unborn, "it's not me, so they aren't important". |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 7, 2017 21:10:39 GMT -5
IOW, Democrats. By the way, if they are convicted, they are prohibited persons under Federal law. So where is the NYT getting their information? Why weren't the shooters prohibited from buying firearms legally? More screwups by the Feds, like they did with this guy, and the shooter at VT. |
|
