Jump to content

Recommended Posts

That's my point. Ridiculous extremes. Restricting driving under fifth. Nukes under second. We draw lines reasonably. And some refuse to accept reason.

 

Actually that's my point. The only reason to ever draw a line is when your rights impact another's rights; "The right to swing my arms in any direction ends where your nose begins. My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins."

 

You don't restrict driving under the fifth. You restrict driving because IT IS NOT A RIGHT. Travel is a right. Driving on public property is controlled, because it is public property. On private property you can drive if you are blind. Why? Because your actions then do not harm my rights.

 

You don't restrict nukes under the second. They are restricted due to ridiculous technical difficulties in producing them and their cost and their impact on other's rights. 

 

The problem is when the line declared for a "reasonable limit" keeps shifting. Who decides the reasonable limit? What if your reasonable is my unreasonable?

 

The only true reasonable limit is when your rights harm others rights, so yes the rights are not absolute for that reason. 

Link to comment
  • Replies 28k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • KoHeartsGPA

    2561

  • datzenmike

    2330

  • Draker

    2054

  • a.d._510_n_ok

    2012

Top Posters In This Topic

Pharma drugs are a HUGE problem and can alter our brains so they don't feel remorse, regret, empathy, etc. these people are getting "help". While I don't agree with medicating the fuck out of everyone the allopathic model prevails and that is where we are. If people who are on those drugs that have a history of exhibiting aggressive, dissociative behavior, were prohibited from owning/possessing weapons with potential to carry out this kind of assault, id be glad. An overwhelming majority of these killers were on prescribed Benzos. And they all had guns. This combination has proven to be tragic. Why the fuck would we not introduce legislation prohibiting guns for people on this class of drug? Or eliminate the drug, but good luck with that one. We already prohibit gun ownership for anyone who has a medical marijuana card...

People with mental health issues are already prohibited from buying and possessing firearms. The medical industry doesn’t have a system for reporting to authorities that a patient has these problems.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

I'm devolving into argumentative. I'm done. I support gun rights and regulation. Fear of overreach is not unwarranted. We must stand our ground, and not get stubborn in our thoughts.

 

If your ideas can't stand up to arguments then are they really worth anything at all then?

 

If you have a logical and consistent framework for your ideas which does not rely on "feelings" then they will survive any logical argument. 

 

I support gun rights, by which I mean I support regulations on peoples actions, not regulations on things, and these should be based on logic and not feelings. 

 

But this is all mental masturbation anyways and I really really like to argue and vigorously debate, so please have a relaxed and good night.

  • Like 2
Link to comment

Just too easy to get guns. Read that in Florida its easier to get an ar15 than a handgun. Even if a background check occurred he would have pass. Combination of feeling isolated and victimized while having an ar15, oh yeh, perfect ingredients for a nut job to shoot up his old school that he felt wronged him. This debate will go on for awhile until something else pops up that intrigues the public, maybe Trumpcheeto tweeting something crazy or north Korea or the kardashians. Then this mass shooting will be in the back burner until another nut job shoots again. Murica!!!!

Pull up your pants, your libtard is showing. “I read in Florida it’s easier to get an ar15 than a handgun”, you outed yourself with that statement. You don’t even know the laws in the state you live in. In nearly, if not every, state in the damn nation it’s easier to get a long gun than a handgun...including the state you live in. Just fyi, the requirements for long gun purchase in California is being age 18. Handguns you must be 21 and have a bullshit handgun safety certificate that’s nothing more than another tax. Lastly, your little “trumpcheeto” obsession makes you come off as mature and mentally stable as a five year old girl with a skinned knee. I’ll start a go fund me for you so you can buy a damn clue.

Link to comment

If your ideas can't stand up to arguments then are they really worth anything at all then?

 

If you have a logical and consistent framework for your ideas which does not rely on "feelings" then they will survive any logical argument. 

 

I support gun rights, by which I mean I support regulations on peoples actions, not regulations on things, and these should be based on logic and not feelings. 

 

But this is all mental masturbation anyways and I really really like to argue and vigorously debate, so please have a relaxed and good night.

 

So much for a reasonable logical conversation about solutions ay Doctor. Holy shit man, you really blew that conversation up good. 

 

 

Pull up your pants, your libtard is showing. “I read in Florida it’s easier to get an ar15 than a handgun”, you outed yourself with that statement. You don’t even know the laws in the state you live in. In nearly, if not every, state in the damn nation it’s easier to get a long gun than a handgun...including the state you live in. Just fyi, the requirements for long gun purchase in California is being age 18. Handguns you must be 21 and have a bullshit handgun safety certificate that’s nothing more than another tax. Lastly, your little “trumpcheeto” obsession makes you come off as mature and mentally stable as a five year old girl with a skinned knee. I’ll start a go fund me for you so you can buy a damn clue.

 

Come on dude, by throwing pissy little insults like that you outed yourself for acting as mature and mentally stable as a five year old girl. 

Link to comment

Well naturally cause anyone can do the same level of killing with a knife or a club.

Actually they can, in the Philippines in the early 1900's guys with machetes would hack up ARMED us soldiers on a pretty regular basis.

 

We don't need more laws we need to enforce the ones that already exist. The guy received treatment at a mental health facility, that is a specific question on the BATFE paper work when you purchase a firearm. If his mental history would have been properly reported his background check would have not allowed him to own said firearm. it's far to easy to just lie on the BATFE paperwork because the feds don't prosecute.

  • Like 4
Link to comment

"Just too easy to get guns." This is the most hypocritical bullshit possible, you just want to push an anti-gun initiative on the back of a tragedy.

 

The problem is a mental health problem. No amount of gun control will ever stop people from killing other people.

 

All kinds of people were saying this guy has problems and nothing happened. What gun law would have changed that exactly?

 

Focusing on the gun will not solve the real problem here of mentally unwell people wanting to kill other people. In countries where guns are hard to legally obtain bad people get them illegally or use other methods.

 

What if he had used a truck? Or diesel and fertilizer to make a bomb? Or any of a number of other ways to kill people?

 

Want to ban "assault trucks"? High capacity fuel tanks?

 

Trying to ban or control a tool is not the right way to control a mental health problem, especially as guns are one of the few tools that in the majority of normal health adults can actually stop tragedies like this!

 

But it doesn't matter what argument or facts or statistics I put out, your "emotions" tell you GUNS are the problem.

 

Well your feelings do not trump my natural rights, those to protect myself and mine through arms.

 

You really want to stop this from happening in the future? Do NOT focus your energies on gun control, focus on the ACTUAL problem, the mentally ill or just downright "evil" people who do the actual killing.

 

I will put it as bluntly as possible. Trying to increase gun control does not prevent crazy people from killing other people. Stopping mentally ill people (intervention, whatever) is what stops mentally ill people from killing other people.

 

 

How about having to have a mentally stable certificate in order to purchase arms rather than selling to just anyone and then finger pointing about mental health after a shooting? Many gun buyers should have their heads examined anyway, and I mean this in a positive way. Q is right about gun ownership but how do you weed out the crazies from the gun nuts? Guns ARE too easy to buy by crazy people. I almost guarantee if there was a crazy test for gun ownership that was retroactive, there would be so many people loosing their guns the screaming would be heard in heaven. Felons are prohibited from gun ownership, no? How about adding crazies?

Link to comment

Actually they can, in the Philippines in the early 1900's guys with machetes would hack up ARMED us soldiers on a pretty regular basis.

 

As a firearms owner I'd definitely take a rifle or pistol over a machete anyday IF I was planning a mass-killing event.

 

The sheer ease of it alone and the ability to defend against non(firearm) armed individuals who come towards me is so plainly the superior option.

 

My comment was more facetious than serious anyways. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment

How about having to have a mentally stable certificate in order to purchase arms rather than selling to just anyone and then finger pointing about mental health after a shooting? Many gun buyers should have their heads examined anyway, and I mean this in a positive way. Q is right about gun ownership but how do you weed out the crazies from the gun nuts? Guns ARE too easy to buy by crazy people. I almost guarantee if there was a crazy test for gun ownership that was retroactive, there would be so many people loosing their guns the screaming would be heard in heaven. Felons are prohibited from gun ownership, no? How about adding crazies?

Mentally ill people are already prohibited from gun ownership. This is literally already a law, it is just NOT enforced well.

 

You want papers saying you aren't crazy? No way that would be abused...

 

So let's get back to what we know:

Crazy people aren't allowed to own/buy guns legally.

However, this guy lied and no one followed up and he bought a gun.

 

Similar situation with the Texas church shooting, he was already a prohibited person, but oh wait a normal citizen with an AR15 stopped that guy so it doesn't fit the gun control narrative.

 

So since what the mentally ill guy did was already against the law tell me how more laws regulating guns will help again?

 

It's almost like criminals don't follow the law, and if you don't enforce the law it doesn't work.

  • Like 3
Link to comment

 

 

 

 

Come on dude, by throwing pissy little insults like that you outed yourself for acting as mature and mentally stable as a five year old girl.

 

For all your cleverness, you still missed the point. I thought it was fairly apparent I was showing him an example of how he came off. In my experience, people won’t look at their own words objectively, but they will sometimes look at others words.

 

Gallagher said it best,”sometimes the only way to fight ignorance and stupidity is with ignorance and stupidity.”

Link to comment

Just too easy to get guns. Read that in Florida its easier to get an ar15 than a handgun. Even if a background check occurred he would have pass. Combination of feeling isolated and victimized while having an ar15, oh yeh, perfect ingredients for a nut job to shoot up his old school that he felt wronged him. This debate will go on for awhile until something else pops up that intrigues the public, maybe Trumpcheeto tweeting something crazy or north Korea or the kardashians. Then this mass shooting will be in the back burner until another nut job shoots again. Murica!!!!

 

People doesn't forget, the Media does! They are terribly afflicted with Shiny Object syndrome. Hell, I am still curious as how it all turned out after the Tsunami in Japan! But that is old news, right? Nuclear plant going bad and all, but no longer relevant to us apparently. 

 

What is going on Syria? Iraq? Anything? Instead this cleans out Dreamers, BLM and other crap. Same shit, we pray, we send wishes, ban guns, don't take my guns, speeches, memorials and shiny object. 

Link to comment

Mentally ill people are already prohibited from gun ownership. This is literally already a law, it is just NOT enforced well.

 

You want papers saying you aren't crazy? No way that would be abused...

 

So let's get back to what we know:

Crazy people aren't allowed to own/buy guns legally.

However, this guy lied and no one followed up and he bought a gun.

 

Similar situation with the Texas church shooting, he was already a prohibited person, but oh wait a normal citizen with an AR15 stopped that guy so it doesn't fit the gun control narrative.

 

So since what the mentally ill guy did was already against the law tell me how more laws regulating guns will help again?

 

It's almost like criminals don't follow the law, and if you don't enforce the law it doesn't work.

 

Fact, if you are a  Citizen in Good Standing, you may purchase a firearm after passing a DOJ background check. You fill out the form and swear that everything you say is the truth. Right?

 

Here is the scary part, and it is not the part about lying on the form. It is the one about being honest and just being denied. No follow up on why you failed to qualify for a firearm. 

 

So what is the point of doing the background checks and paying the fees for this if people will get away with a gun or be denied and just walk away with no scrutiny? Oh yeah, Fees, especially in CA go to the Democratic Boondoggle that is Sacramento. And then they say there is no money to follow up on the folks that got denied a firearm, who will most likely try and buy one again. 

 

The system, not the Gun Rights, is what needs the overhaul. Maybe have someone ask you the questions and fill out the form. I am sure most folks are pretty good judges of character, with proper training of course, and could probably spot most types of prohibited people. 

 

Please, keep in mind these are my observations and opinions. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment

https://nypost.com/2018/02/16/deputies-called-to-suspected-shooters-home-39-times-over-seven-years/

 

Before Nikolas Cruz carried out his mass killing at a Florida high school this week, police responded to his home 39 times over a seven-year period, according to disturbing new documents.

 

 

So many red flags are popping up about this guy. A serious disaster looking for a place to happen.

  • Like 2
Link to comment

https://nypost.com/2018/02/16/deputies-called-to-suspected-shooters-home-39-times-over-seven-years/

 

Before Nikolas Cruz carried out his mass killing at a Florida high school this week, police responded to his home 39 times over a seven-year period, according to disturbing new documents.

 

 

So many red flags are popping up about this guy. A serious disaster looking for a place to happen.

 

So ineptitude on the part of local P.D. and other authorities to not keep a closer eye on this dude? 

Link to comment

It would be quite easy to connect the firearms background check database to a pharmaceutical database. The database would need to comply with HIPAA standards. And flags could be non descript. You go on this med, you can't own guns. You own guns, you can't go on this med. background checks for gun ownership could include a psyc eval, but that would be a huge hurdle in legislation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

I know here in AUS the Federal Police,state police and spy agencies keep an eye on potential terrorists and that it's costly as $$ wise but of course right to spend said $$ on and that many terror plots have been thwarted due to that. 

 

With a population of 323 million and of that easily as many firearms being owned it'd maybe be a logistical nightmare and $$$ budget impossibility to track them all?

 

Though NSA and CIA have got some damn good software for analysis/surveillance they could benevolently share with the P.D's?

Link to comment

Firearms makers... "Hey! we just make them. Who or how they are used is not out responsibility.

 

Gun sellers... Hey! I just sell them... I can't know how they are used."

 

Gun rights activists... " Hey, everyone has the right to buy, collect and own guns. What they do with them is not our problems"

 

Police.... "Hey we do what we can with the laws that exist"

 

Lawmakers... "Hey we have enough gun laws... the NRA has told us so.

 

NRA.... "Hey! if everyone was armed this would never have happened in the first place"

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Firearms makers... "Hey! we just make them. Who or how they are used is not out responsibility.

 

Gun sellers... Hey! I just sell them... I can't know how they are used."

 

Gun rights activists... " Hey, everyone has the right to buy, collect and own guns. What they do with them is not our problems"

 

Police.... "Hey we do what we can with the laws that exist"

 

Lawmakers... "Hey we have enough gun laws... the NRA has told us so.

 

NRA.... "Hey! if everyone was armed this would never have happened in the first place"

 

That's paraphrasing a bit, but this is the stale worn out rhetoric I was talking about that's gotten us stalled here. So where can we modify this closed loop to make a difference and still protect the 2nd, and our safety?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.