Does this mean...?

[green_dude777]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/22/justice/nevada-police-murder-suicide/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

With instances like this, are we going to discuss the restrictions on firearms to police officers? What about the military?

Edited January 22, 2013 by green_dude777

[freetoroam]

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t3

With instances like this, are we going to discuss the restrictions on firearms to police officers? What about the military?

Absolutely not, this guy did not go on the rampage and kill innocent people. Sad story for him, his wife and child, obviously something very wrong at home. If a husband loses the plot and is intent on killing his wife and family, I doubt not having a gun about would have made any difference, except it was quicker.

Maybe the tell tell signs of his instability were there and maybe that should have been addressed, but we do not know yet.

Like the nurse who committed suicide over the prank calls, some of us were saying that there must have been signs about her mental health before hand, and there WERE.

[RavenHawk]

It means that if we had a true leader in the whitehouse, this stuff wouldn't be so rampant. Let alone plastered up front in the Media. This is right out of Alinski on how to use anarchy to reach your goals. It's not that these shooting incidents are all planned but the charisma of Obama's divisiveness puts pressure on the core fiber of American culture and something has to give. Right now, you're seeing the mine canaries are being affected.

[freetoroam]

yes, it seems that anything to do with guns now will be front page news, the fact that there were gun incidents every day of the year some where in America before the Sandy Hook incident, seems irrelevant, at the moment.

There is no conspiracy involved in any of these incidents, but would not surprise me if the government come up with some plan to try and take peoples mind off it, maybe an alien invasion or NASA will announce they have made contact with a UFO....both of which will turn out to be false alarms when the time is right.

[aztek]

Absolutely not, this guy did not go on the rampage and kill innocent people.

he sure did, killed his wife and kid, burned his house down, and warned anyone trying to stop him will be shot.he was a nutcase, and he was a cop. how many cops like that ready to snap are there??? is the next cop pulling you over, will go bananas over simple (what did i do wrong, officer) question? you never know.

[freetoroam]

he sure did, killed his wife and kid, burned his house down, and warned anyone trying to stop him will be shot.he was a nutcase, and he was a cop. how many cops like that ready to snap are there??? is the next cop pulling you over, will go bananas over simple (what did i do wrong, officer) question? you never know.

I see what you are saying, but I still say there may have well been some mental problems there...time will tell?

As for getting pulled over, our police do not carry guns, but I reckon its because we know we can not trust them to, some are bad enough as they are with out a gun.

Edited January 22, 2013 by freetoroam

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

that's why in Oz the firearms are stored at the station.

[RavenHawk]

yes, it seems that anything to do with guns now will be front page news, the fact that there were gun incidents every day of the year some where in America before the Sandy Hook incident, seems irrelevant, at the moment.

People are losing their bearing. Being stirred up by the great pretender (the community organizer) and his minions (MSM). These incidents *DO* occur all the time here but other causes of death are far more prevalent. This is being blown out of proportion and he is just letting it reach critical mass.

There is no conspiracy involved in any of these incidents,

Correct but it doesn't have to be. Obama is harnessing the impetus in order to dismantle the Constitution. He studied Constitutional law so he not only knows how to defend it but knows of ways to destroy it.

but would not surprise me if the government come up with some plan to try and take peoples mind off it, maybe an alien invasion or NASA will announce they have made contact with a UFO....both of which will turn out to be false alarms when the time is right.

Why would Obama do that? That's not what he wants. He wants these incidents foremost in the minds of the low-information voter. He can manipulate that section of the population.

[Beckys_Mom]

That's not what he wants. He wants these incidents foremost in the minds of the low-information voter. He can manipulate that section of the population.

Yup and he sank the titanic

[lightly]

On the ground dirtbag ! . . . . but dad . . Stop resisting!!!!!!! Terrible thing really. .. but blaming Obama for this one might be a bit of a stretch?

[Beckys_Mom]

On the ground dirtbag ! . . . . but dad . . Stop resisting!!!!!!! Terrible thing really. .. but blaming Obama for this one might be a bit of a stretch?

But hew did shoot JR AND worst of all, he kicked my cat lol.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Beckys_Mom

[godnodog]

It means that if we had a true leader in the whitehouse, this stuff wouldn't be so rampant. Let alone plastered up front in the Media. This is right out of Alinski on how to use anarchy to reach your goals. It's not that these shooting incidents are all planned but the charisma of Obama's divisiveness puts pressure on the core fiber of American culture and something has to give. Right now, you're seeing the mine canaries are being affected.

Now it´s Obama fault? WTF?

[preacherman76]

They should report it everytime 0bama kills innocent folks in the middle east with drones. That goes on daily to.

[Beckys_Mom]

They should report it everytime 0bama kills innocent folks in the middle east with drones. That goes on daily to.

Casualties of war? Or are you suggesting he sent the military out to deliberately kill only the innocent? Who sent their men to war in the first place? And to add, before Obama, there were no innocents killed during that time?

Edited January 23, 2013 by Beckys_Mom

[freetoroam]

Why would Obama do that? That's not what he wants. He wants these incidents foremost in the minds of the low-information voter. He can manipulate that section of the population.

it does not take long for the low-informative voter to adhere to this kind of news, its the high informative voter whos votes matter to him. But on that note, it has nothing to do with Obama what has happened now, I am sure he is clever enough to know that daily news reports about shootings is not going to help the situation or what he has planned about gun control. He will not want the media to manipulate the gun situation with "normal everyday" gun stories which normally would only make the local village news letter, the public are not that stupid that they will not realise what the media is up to.....I hope.

Edited January 23, 2013 by freetoroam

[lightly]

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t3

With instances like this, are we going to discuss the restrictions on firearms to police officers? What about the military?

in a word? NO.

[green_dude777]

in a word? NO.

Then just a quick question; How am I supposed to defend myself against these guys if you take away my guns?

They are the police and military sworn to protect and serve.... so am I just SOL if they snap?

[Beckys_Mom]

Then just a quick question; How am I supposed to defend myself against these guys if you take away my guns?

But they are not going to take away your guns.. You own the rights to protect yourself.. Unless you have something official from the white house that says ALL guns will be taken away?

[freetoroam]

Then just a quick question; How am I supposed to defend myself against these guys if you take away my guns?

They are the police and military sworn to protect and serve.... so am I just SOL if they snap?

How many of your cops "snap"? is it a regular thing? cos if it is, then someone should be looking at who they are employing to look after you, and if you do not feel safe with them can you complain to someone, or is that a waste of time? just asking.

[lightly]

Then just a quick question; How am I supposed to defend myself against these guys if you take away my guns?

They are the police and military sworn to protect and serve.... so am I just SOL if they snap?

hi green_dude, good question, but, like Beckys_Mom said, not all guns are affected by the new policies.. so i guess you'll have to hold em off with small arms if they snap.

Nothing has been said about limiting police, or military, arms.

[questionmark]

Then just a quick question; How am I supposed to defend myself against these guys if you take away my guns?

They are the police and military sworn to protect and serve.... so am I just SOL if they snap?

And how are you going to determine if they "snap"?

[green_dude777]

I introduced the thread to show that it's not just civilians that do crazy things with weapons. It's already been demonstrated that restricting police or military arms is out of the question with most of you, so I have nothing else to contribute to the thread.

To sum this all up, authority controlled by the government can have all the arms they want (despite them being crazy as well), while the rest of us are unfit for the same caliber of weapons. I see where you all stand, and we're just going to continue to have the same fundamental disagreement.

Becky: Never did I say they'll take away all of my guns, they'll let anyone keep the hunting rifles. Don't know how well I'll be able to defend against an oppressor (civilian or otherwise) if I'm outgunned from the onset.

Freetoroam: How often does it happen? Well just like the school shootings, once is too much.

Lightly: So you answered my question; yes, I will be SOL. You definitely missed the point of my original question, which was simply if we were going to discuss restricting firearms to police or military. You also answered that, as you are not open to discussion on restrictions to these groups.

questionmark: The same way if I were to determine if a civilian 'snaps'.... If my life is in eminent danger, I will stop that eminent danger.

[AsteroidX]

Absolutely not, this guy did not go on the rampage and kill innocent people

Are you saying his wife and child arent innocent people. I certainly hope not.

[freetoroam]

Are you saying his wife and child arent innocent people. I certainly hope not.

You know what I meant if you read the whole post. No matter what the circumstances where at home, nothing can justify what this man did. But I meant he flipped at home and not in a public place. Of course the child was innocent, as for the wife, we do not know BUT it still does not mean he had to shoot her.

To tell the truth after I posted I thought I might get this question, but could not be ar$ed to change it because the thread was referring to the fact that all cops might be a danger to the public in general. This particular cop was a threat to his family...whether he was a threat to the public too, we will thankfully never know.

Edited January 23, 2013 by freetoroam

[Beckys_Mom]

Becky: Never did I say they'll take away all of my guns, they'll let anyone keep the hunting rifles. Don't know how well I'll be able to defend against an oppressor (civilian or otherwise) if I'm outgunned from the onset.

I know you didn't say it, but from reading your post, it gave the impression you thought it could happen, ( when you said IF they take away my guns, how will I protect myself? ) I may have gotten the wrong impression .. In saying that, so many actually do believe it... I believe it when I see it, but for now I am doubting it very much so..

Edited January 24, 2013 by Beckys_Mom