New Gun Law Push

[Agent0range]

Why don't you do a search and see how many law enforcement members oppose new gun control laws. There are a few who even say if they do pass, they won't enforce them because it infringes upon citizen's rights stated in the U.S. Constitution. Some real cops there.

Oh, well surely the cops who took a couple community college classes know the complete ins and outs of the consitution. Let them not enforce laws and see where their 20 credits in criminal justice takes them in life.

[aztek]

funny you should mention that, yep will definably see

[CRYSiiSx2]

Oh, well surely the cops who took a couple community college classes know the complete ins and outs of the consitution. Let them not enforce laws and see where their 20 credits in criminal justice takes them in life.

Okay I got it. Instead of taking the word of those who took classes, and not to mention the ex-military men and women who actually served their country... we'll take the word of one who posts incoherent B.S. on a forum. Yeah... well. Gun control support has been dropping and will continue to. Good guys are winning, and it fells good to be on the winning side

Edited September 23, 2013 by CRYSiiSx2

[Michelle]

I'll take their advice as soon as they get their act together and are capable of reporting from one agency to the next that there is a loose cannon who should not have a gun. Latest example Aaron Alexis, who had been detained twice in gun related incidents. And through inaction ended up killing 12.

Time to lighten things up a little. How to tell if you are mentally ill....

http://www.quotev.com/quiz/592805/Are-You-Mentally-Ill/

[questionmark]

Time to lighten things up a little. How to tell if you are mentally ill....

http://www.quotev.co...u-Mentally-Ill/

How 'bout that:

You Are Completely Normal.

You are completely normal. That, or you are fooling yourself and everyone else. You exhibit no signs of having a mental disorder. That's great, but you probably feel like you don't belong in this world of crazy people!!

And I bet that is the answer 99% get, no matter what answers they submit. The website owners don't want to get sued for practicing medicine without a license

[aztek]

lol, that was a joke, you didn't take that test seriously did you??

btw i turned out completely normal too, that most likely is very shocking for you, lol you just can't believe it.

Edited September 23, 2013 by aztek

[CRYSiiSx2]

Time to lighten things up a little. How to tell if you are mentally ill....

http://www.quotev.co...u-Mentally-Ill/

holy crap im normal

[Kowalski]

holy crap im normal

Well, it said I'm paranoid.....

No surprise there!

[questionmark]

Well, it said I'm paranoid.....

No surprise there!

really? those website owners must be walking on the wild side. I take back my previous statement.

[Agent0range]

Okay I got it. Instead of taking the word of those who took classes, and not to mention the ex-military men and women who actually served their country... we'll take the word of one who posts incoherent B.S. on a forum. Yeah... well. Gun control support has been dropping and will continue to. Good guys are winning, and it fells good to be on the winning side

Well, for the record, I got out of the Army two years ago after eight years of service...so does that make my opinion matter more to you?

[CRYSiiSx2]

Well, for the record, I got out of the Army two years ago after eight years of service...so does that make my opinion matter more to you?

Had it not been for the crap you said on here... probably.

[aztek]

no one's opinion matters, only reality matters

[Michelle]

You guys are no fun.

[questionmark]

You guys are no fun.

I know I ain't. As soon as I have five free minutes I'll stand in the corner with the dunce hat.

[CRYSiiSx2]

Yet another reason for more gun ownership.

http://www.walb.com/story/23481934/gbi-investigates-tifton-shooting-death

[F3SS]

Why? I love it to bring him to admit that where he said I was lying I was actually being pretty factual. Like with his last statement

I think a mutual punch in the nose would do you both some good. You guys have been at it for at least a year easy.

But people who think they need a fully automatic machine gun to fend off a home intruder are completely sane? 90% of people in the NRA wouldn't be able to put the trigger if it came down to it.

Comments like that don't help this conversation either. Why? Because of its implication and because you made it up. Even though your rhetorical question makes sense your implication doesn't. The implication being that there's some epidemic of people wielding M-16's for home protection. The ones who are certainly not sane and are almost guaranteed to be wielding an illegal weapon that no law would've prevented them from acquiring in the first place. Those who legally own full auto machine guns are highly unlikely to use it for home protection? Why? Very expensive and a high chance of collateral destruction.

[Michelle]

Those who legally own full auto machine guns are highly unlikely to use it for home protection? Why? Very expensive and a high chance of collateral destruction.

That's like trying to shoot a mouse off a 400 gallon propane tank with a .357, after drinkin' a quart o' moonshine....insurance don't cover it.

[aztek]

if you got mouse problems you aint got enough cats. or you feed them too much. lol

Edited September 23, 2013 by aztek

[questionmark]

I think a mutual punch in the nose would do you both some good. You guys have been at it for at least a year easy.

Comments like that don't help this conversation either. Why? Because of its implication and because you made it up. Even though your rhetorical question makes sense your implication doesn't. The implication being that there's some epidemic of people wielding M-16's for home protection. The ones who are certainly not sane and are almost guaranteed to be wielding an illegal weapon that no law would've prevented them from acquiring in the first place. Those who legally own full auto machine guns are highly unlikely to use it for home protection? Why? Very expensive and a high chance of collateral destruction.

That's like trying to shoot a mouse off a 400 gallon propane tank with a .357, after drinkin' a quart o' moonshine....insurance don't cover it.

And that is not the core of our problem. For all I care everybody could have a nuke in his garage. Provided that person is sane and competent to handle the durn thing.

The problem is that known time bombs are being allowed to run around with guns. And it is just a matter of time before the fuse runs out.

[aztek]

The problem is that known time bombs are being allowed to run around with guns. And it is just a matter of time before the fuse runs out.

i have no problem with taking guns from such time bombs, neither does nra. however there seems to be a problem declaring those that deserve a" timebombs", and that has nothing to do with nra. if there is a red flag in system across their name, they wont be able to buy one legally, just like there are flags next to felon names in existing national database, and it works. why gvmnt keeps talking about hi cap magaznes, and folding stocks, and ignores mental health, and nra did pointed that out before, is beyond me. maybe you can explain.,

[F3SS]

Selling to known time bombs is one thing. The bigger problem is selling to time bombs with no previous record and in a world without Minority Report technology how can you deny somebody their lawful right to own when they haven't acquired any record of the mental incapacity.

[Mantis914]

And that is not the core of our problem. For all I care everybody could have a nuke in his garage. Provided that person is sane and competent to handle the durn thing.

The problem is that known time bombs are being allowed to run around with guns. And it is just a matter of time before the fuse runs out.

"Known" time bombs? So we know who is going to do the next Aurora or Newtown? That's like predicting who's going to cause the next pileup because they were texting on the freeway.

Let me show you a couple of cases we had here in DFW earlier this year.

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/21237261/homeowner-kills-intruder-in-oak-cliff-home

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/22189782/store-owner-shoots-robbers

So you're telling me that not having a gun and calling police to protect yourself is the best way??? You're more than welcome to try it...

[questionmark]

Selling to known time bombs is one thing. The bigger problem is selling to time bombs with no previous record and in a world without Minority Report technology how can you deny somebody their lawful right to own when they haven't acquired any record of the mental incapacity.

Look at the perpetrators of this years mass shootings. Maybe one or two had no alarm bells attached leading a previously unnoticed life. With the rest it was just a matter of time. And if you look closely at the statistics you see that most of these shooting rage cases (even with only one or two injured) are caused by somebody of whom all seen it coming except law enforcement that had no clue.

**** will still happen but every case where somebody is not injured is a gain for society. People not getting injured takes, in my view, precedence over some high risk personality to have a gun.

The only way to ensure that, as I said many times, is to know who is high risk and who has guns. While it is easier to establish who is high risk in most states it is nearly impossible to establish who all has guns. And I can understand paranoia about the government coming to taking away your gun and hiding it. But that is certainly not healthy. After all, you are (at least in a small part) the government.

[Mantis914]

Look at the perpetrators of this years mass shootings. Maybe one or two had no alarm bells attached leading a previously unnoticed life. With the rest it was just a matter of time. And if you look closely at the statistics you see that most of these shooting rage cases (even with only one or two injured) are caused by somebody of whom all seen it coming except law enforcement that had no clue.

**** will still happen but every case where somebody is not injured is a gain for society. People not getting injured takes, in my view, precedence over some high risk personality to have a gun.

The only way to ensure that, as I said many times, is to know who is high risk and who has guns. While it is easier to establish who is high risk in most states it is nearly impossible to establish who all has guns. And I can understand paranoia about the government coming to taking away your gun and hiding it. But that is certainly not healthy. After all, you are (at least in a small part) the government.

So are you going to ban cars, knives, bats and pretty much anything else that can cause injury for the sake of the common good?

[questionmark]

So are you going to ban cars, knives, bats and pretty much anything else that can cause injury for the sake of the common good?

You mean that high risk personalities, like alcoholics, get to drive cars drunk without consequences?

That is the biggest bullcrap argument I heard in this whole debate. And one that has no purpose but to keep the current status quo. If I were a cynic I would say it even has a merit for certain parties in the country:The more people have guns the more likely a psychotic personality has one, the more psychotic personalities have one the more likely somebody is to get shot, which leads to more people to be scared and buy a gun where more psychotic personalities have one.