|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 14, 2011 16:55:29 GMT -5
Just because they seem lawful (no record) doesn't mean they are. The person could be a serial killer, but they aren't caught so they have no record. Also, maybe we should take note of the kids who kill animals for fun. That is one of the biggest warning signs that the kid is a sociopath. Should guns really be sold to sociopaths? Eh, If you're talking about hunting, killing the animal isn't necessarily the fun part. I'm no fan of hunting but that is not what I'm talking about. I'm saying like the kids who see a stray cat in their backyard and they catch it and then kill it by breaking its neck or wrapping it in fireworks, craplike that. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 14, 2011 18:38:39 GMT -5
We do not know who all is good and who all is bad. We may not, but this man does.  |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 14, 2011 18:47:27 GMT -5
We do not know who all is good and who all is bad. We may not, but this man does. Claus '12. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 14, 2011 18:53:43 GMT -5
We do not know who all is good and who all is bad. Bad people may not have a criminal record. Bad people may not be flagged as insane. It just means they haven't been caught yet. There needs to be a way to catch the bad people without hurting the good, but we don't really know how to do that. Until we come up with a way to do that without limiting the rights of innocent people, then I cannot support it. There are weapons that have no purpose other than to kill. You can say you can use them for hunting or for sport, but really, do you need such high powered guns/ammo for either of those things? There are no laws that say that I cannot own a gun with the sole intention of only ever using it to kill a person. Many, MANY people own guns solely for protection and they have an absolute right to have them. There are even states where shooting an intruder and killing them is completely unpunishable. Years ago, a politician cried while running for President. That ruined him, he had to drop out, I'm not even sure what ended up happening to him. But now, Boehner cries if he sees a jello mold. He could set a good example for men and show that men don't have to hide their feelings. It's just too bad that his name is so easy to make dick jokes about. Schools aren't going to kick you out because you wore a hat today. There was obviously something behind their claims that he was crazy. Being that they're a private organization, though, they can kick him out for whatever they want, really. I mean, obviously they were right that he IS crazy, but we can't just take their word for it 100% of the time. Ok, you don't want to use the school as basis for denying him a gun. Fine. Something should have been entered into the system that the gun people have to see that the police went to his house multiple times and that he was threatening to kill people. If they saw that he was threatening to kill people that should raise some flags and they should think twice before deciding to sell a gun to the person. Absolutely, but they didn't sell a gun to him.  Just because they seem lawful (no record) doesn't mean they are. The person could be a serial killer, but they aren't caught so they have no record. Also, maybe we should take note of the kids who kill animals for fun. That is one of the biggest warning signs that the kid is a sociopath. Should guns really be sold to sociopaths? I'm not sure where you're going with this. If we don't know that they're a serial killer, there's not much we can do to stop them. No, they shouldn't be able to buy guns if they kill animals. I actually disagree with most Libertarians on the whole animal rights issue. I believe that animals, particularly domesticated ones, should have significantly more "rights" than they do. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 14, 2011 18:58:44 GMT -5
I would totally vote for Claus. Since politicians like to play Santa anyway, we might as well elect the real thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 14, 2011 21:01:13 GMT -5
I'm not getting into the intruder argument. I'm not saying you can't own the gun, I'm just saying there are guns that no reasonable person would use for hunting/sport and even protection would seem overboard.
I've heard that when two vowels go walking, the first does the talking. oe together should then make an o sound.
If they have no proof that the person is crazy then no flags should be raised, because that could just be an excuse to get rid of you. If you were doing things like Loughner did, then they can document the crazy.
The assault weapons ban lapsed under President W. Bush and it was never reinstated. The media was quick to jump on the illegal gun story as was I, but it turns out that he did legally buy the gun after Thanksgiving. If the ban was still in place, he wouldn't have gotten that gun. Would he have gotten one on the black market? Maybe, but we can't say for sure.
My point on that is bad people may not be documented as bad and they can legally purchase things they couldn't get if we knew they were bad. Maybe we need to stop enforcing laws that hurt no one and let the cops focus on murders, rapes, etc so we can identify the bad guys if they want to do something like buy a gun.
If some places didn't do things like force victims to pay for their own rape kits and we gave money to the states so they could process the rape kits so we could find the person who does the bad things, maybe we can stop more bad people from doing bad things.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 14, 2011 21:04:35 GMT -5
How do you "prove" someone is crazy? Heck, I think Oskankowski is crazy. I seriously doubt he's a risk for violent behavior though.
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 14, 2011 21:39:05 GMT -5
How do you "prove" someone is crazy? Heck, I think Oskankowski is crazy. I seriously doubt he's a risk for violent behavior though. Someone who threatens to kill others should stand out as a possible violent threat. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 14, 2011 21:39:34 GMT -5
I'm not getting into the intruder argument. I'm not saying you can't own the gun, I'm just saying there are guns that no reasonable person would use for hunting/sport and even protection would seem overboard. Reasonable according to who? If you've got ONE intruder, yeah, maybe a cheap little pistol will work. But some people have legitimate fears that there will be a group of people who come into their home and attempt to attack them, their family, or take their possessions. In that case, who's to say that a fully automatic assault rifle isn't appropriate? I mean, I understand your concern and everything, but we can't just say that people should be content with what gun control activists deem to be fair. As you know, I don't own a gun, nor do I plan to ever own one... But I'm not going to try to limit other people's ability to buy guns simply because some deranged lunatic shot some people. I'll tell you one thing, though -- the minute the government threatens taking all guns is the day I start loading up for war. I've heard that when two vowels go walking, the first does the talking. oe together should then make an o sound. Wh...Wh...what? If they have no proof that the person is crazy then no flags should be raised, because that could just be an excuse to get rid of you. If you were doing things like Loughner did, then they can document the crazy. Sure, but just because a school says, "He's crazy" doesn't mean he necessarily is crazy. Do we really want to keep innocent people waiting weeks for ammo when we know that people who are committing violent crimes are rarely using registered firearms in the first place? The assault weapons ban lapsed under President W. Bush and it was never reinstated. The media was quick to jump on the illegal gun story as was I, but it turns out that he did legally buy the gun after Thanksgiving. If the ban was still in place, he wouldn't have gotten that gun. Would he have gotten one on the black market? Maybe, but we can't say for sure.? Does it really matter what gun he was using? He had TWO on him, for god's sake. My point on that is bad people may not be documented as bad and they can legally purchase things they couldn't get if we knew they were bad. Maybe we need to stop enforcing laws that hurt no one and let the cops focus on murders, rapes, etc so we can identify the bad guys if they want to do something like buy a gun. Hey, you know I agree on stopping all of this petty crime nonsense. If some places didn't do things like force victims to pay for their own rape kits and we gave money to the states so they could process the rape kits so we could find the person who does the bad things, maybe we can stop more bad people from doing bad things. Couldn't agree more with you. We need to be protecting the rights of people and helping the victims of crimes. Instead, the government spends literally countless money on stopping drugs while simultaneously bringing drugs into the country (admitted). |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 14, 2011 21:40:30 GMT -5
How do you "prove" someone is crazy? Heck, I think Oskankowski is crazy. I seriously doubt he's a risk for violent behavior though. Someone who threatens to kill others should stand out as a possible violent threat. Absolutely. This is an isolated incident, though. You have to keep in mind how many people commit violent crimes and have never had any history of it before. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 14, 2011 21:53:47 GMT -5
I think a reasonable person could go hunting with a hunting rifle to kill a deer. They don't need an assault rifle to hunt. I personally believe that the 2nd amendment was put in place solely to make sure you could protect yourself should the King of England try to break into your house. (In case anyone starts taking me literally, I don't mean only having a gun in case he breaks into your house. It is a metaphor for him trying to take over the country.) The vowel thing, I was talking about Boehner. Saying that the o should make the sound not the e. I'm not saying they can just label him crazy, I'm saying if they have repeated events that allude to/imply his unstable mind then they can have cause for concern. I am not saying weeks. They could do a background check in 2-3 days. Hell, if it wasn't such a cluster  , they could probably get all the info they want right away on screen after confirming the person's identity. Arizona has the most lax gun control policy in the country sans Vermont. Arizona is a gun lover's paradise. Even with being able to openly carry without a permit, no one could stop him from killing those people. Someone did have a gun and they couldn't get him. They got him after he was reloading and the woman knocked the ammo out of his hand and then the guys tackled him. If he didn't have such a large round, maybe he could have been stopped before shooting 18-19 people. Our government is corrupt, honestly, I don't think they even try to hide that. We need to focus on major crimes, that's really all we can do. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 14, 2011 22:06:23 GMT -5
I think a reasonable person could go hunting with a hunting rifle to kill a deer. They don't need an assault rifle to hunt. I know man, but this isn't shooting a deer. This is shooting a target that is likely also armed and there may very well be more than one of them. I personally believe that the 2nd amendment was put in place solely to make sure you could protect yourself should the King of England try to break into your house. (In case anyone starts taking me literally, I don't mean only having a gun in case he breaks into your house. It is a metaphor for him trying to take over the country.) It was. But that threat has changed into our own government because they have so severely overstepped their boundaries. The vowel thing, I was talking about Boehner. Saying that the o should make the sound not the e. Ahhhh! hahahah. I'm not saying they can just label him crazy, I'm saying if they have repeated events that allude to/imply his unstable mind then they can have cause for concern. Yeah, he probably should've had to have gone through psychological analysis after being kicked out of school. I am not saying weeks. They could do a background check in 2-3 days. Hell, if it wasn't such a cluster , they could probably get all the info they want right away on screen after confirming the person's identity. From what I understand, it can take between 1 minute and 10 days to get a 'background check' completed, depending on the state. Again, though, I'm not a gun owner so I really have no experience of my own. Arizona has the most lax gun control policy in the country sans Vermont. Arizona is a gun lover's paradise. Even with being able to openly carry without a permit, no one could stop him from killing those people. Someone did have a gun and they couldn't get him. They got him after he was reloading and the woman knocked the ammo out of his hand and then the guys tackled him. If he didn't have such a large round, maybe he could have been stopped before shooting 18-19 people. Didn't the person who eventually took him down also have a gun on him, and didn't he say that he is happy that he didn't shoot him so that they can prosecute him? Either way, even if you're holding a gun, your initial reaction isn't going to be to reach for your gun the second you think you hear a gun shooting. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 14, 2011 22:09:16 GMT -5
We need to elect Santa Claus. That's what we need to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 14, 2011 22:18:20 GMT -5
We need to elect Santa Claus. That's what we need to do. Santa is going to have a tough time getting elected. If Obama thought his birth certificate was an issue, wait 'til he sees Santa's birth certificate controversy! |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 14, 2011 22:30:31 GMT -5
We need to elect Santa Claus. That's what we need to do. Santa is going to have a tough time getting elected. If Obama thought his birth certificate was an issue, wait 'til he sees Santa's birth certificate controversy! Well, if we're going to make an exception for Arnold............. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 14, 2011 22:33:40 GMT -5
There are no other guns that could be used to protect someone from a group of intruders? It has to be an automatic weapon? That is fine as well. We have the right to bear arms in case any tyrannical power wants to silence the people/take away their rights. I just read today about a school who force a student into a counseling session and then into a mental hospital because they thought she was crazy. The event happened a few years ago, but it became news today because she is suing the school. It turns out what they thought was paranoid delusions was actually reality. She said that her landlord was spying on her by recording what went on in her place. Well, it turns out, the landlord was doing that, but the school didn't know and sent her away anyways. I'm just going out on a limb thought I'm probably right, the problem is a bureaucratic cluster . I don't know if he was the one to tackle him or not. I just know he heard gun shots while he was in the store, he grabbed his gun and ran out of the store. Now this could have just been a media misstatement, but I heard that he did get off a few shots at Loughner, but he was never hit. If Jesus came and ran for President, he wouldn't be allowed to. Though, I'd like to see who it would be that would call him out on it and be the one to disqualify him from running. |
|
|
|
Post by mrmad426 on Jan 14, 2011 22:36:05 GMT -5
Have you guys noticed that the shooter looks like a grown up version of Charlie Brown?
|
|
jgmuff
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Aug 19, 2006 15:12:46 GMT -5
Posts: 197
|
Post by jgmuff on Jan 14, 2011 23:04:24 GMT -5
I'm not getting into the intruder argument. I'm not saying you can't own the gun, I'm just saying there are guns that no reasonable person would use for hunting/sport and even protection would seem overboard. I've heard that when two vowels go walking, the first does the talking. oe together should then make an o sound. If they have no proof that the person is crazy then no flags should be raised, because that could just be an excuse to get rid of you. If you were doing things like Loughner did, then they can document the crazy. The assault weapons ban lapsed under President W. Bush and it was never reinstated. The media was quick to jump on the illegal gun story as was I, but it turns out that he did legally buy the gun after Thanksgiving. If the ban was still in place, he wouldn't have gotten that gun. Would he have gotten one on the black market? Maybe, but we can't say for sure.My point on that is bad people may not be documented as bad and they can legally purchase things they couldn't get if we knew they were bad. Maybe we need to stop enforcing laws that hurt no one and let the cops focus on murders, rapes, etc so we can identify the bad guys if they want to do something like buy a gun. If some places didn't do things like force victims to pay for their own rape kits and we gave money to the states so they could process the rape kits so we could find the person who does the bad things, maybe we can stop more bad people from doing bad things. . This is incorrect you could buy a glock during the ban.. The ban was on high cap mags so if there was a ban there would have been a 5 rd difference...wow big difference huh? I think not.. And if I want to own. An. "assault rifle" a you call it it is my right to do so |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 14, 2011 23:07:33 GMT -5
What other rights do you support as much as the second amendment?
|
|
jgmuff
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Aug 19, 2006 15:12:46 GMT -5
Posts: 197
|
Post by jgmuff on Jan 14, 2011 23:18:06 GMT -5
Considering I'm an arms salesman that takes the cake I'm also pro life pro gay rights even though I'm pretty far right
|
|
