Everything I don't know about guns
#81
Cletus, when will you admit that ACCESS has never been tighter in our history, and these things didn't happen 40 years ago when guns were actually on school grounds in the pick ups of the students and teachers alike?

I repeat: ACCESS HAS NEVER BEEN MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN NOW. Can you deny that?
Reply
#82
It took a culture shift to get us here and it will take another culture shift to get us somewhere else. Just don't expect a culture shift back to the '50's. That's just not possible.
Reply
#83
(10-04-2015, 10:48 AM)cletus1 Wrote:
(10-04-2015, 10:04 AM)tvguy Wrote:
(10-03-2015, 08:54 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(10-03-2015, 04:47 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(10-03-2015, 04:28 PM)cletus1 Wrote: How Mass Shooters Get Their Guns


Here are the origins of every gun used in the high-profile massacres of Obama’s presidency.
By Christina Cauterucci and Greta Weber


[Image: 151002_POL_guns-from-mass-shootings.jpg....large2.jpg]it is remarkably easy to get your hands on a gun in this country.






Photo illustration by Juliana Jiménez. Photos by Andrew Burton/Getty Images and Joern Pollex/Getty Images.


On Thursday, after Chris Harper Mercer shot and killed 9 people at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, President Obama gave the latest in a tragic series of addresses in response to mass shootings in the U.S. "It cannot be this easy for somebody who wants to inflict harm to get his or her hands on a gun," he said.
But it is remarkably easy to get your hands on a gun in this country. Of the 11 shootings that prompted Obama to give a public address, eight were committed by gunmen who’d bought at least some of their firearms legally, some just days before their massacres. Several had histories of criminal behavior and mental illness that fell just shy of prohibiting their gun purchases—and in one case, a bureaucratic slip-up in the routine FBI background check was at fault. Here’s how the guns in each attack came into the hands of t
.



Shooting: Military base at Fort Hood, Texas
Date: 
Nov. 5, 2009
Perpetrator: 
Nidal Hasan
Guns:
 FN Five-seven semiautomatic pistol and Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolver. He killed 13 people and injured more than 30.
How he got them: 
Guns Galore, a gun shop in Killeen, Texas, sold Hasan the gun legally three months before the shooting. He was not required to register the firearm on the base, because he didn’t reside there.

.



Shooting: Gabrielle Giffords constituent meeting in aTucson, Arizona, parking lot
Date: 
Jan. 8, 2011
Perpetrator: 
Jared Lee Loughner
Gun: 
Glock 19 9 mm semiautomatic handgun. Loughner killed six people and shot 13 more, including Rep. Giffords.
How he got it:
 Arizona, which has some of the laxest gun laws in the country, passed a law in 2010 that allowed people to buy guns for concealed carry without a permit. Though guns cannot be sold to people with severe mental illness and though Loughner was suspended from his community college for mental health issues, no court had ever declared him mentally unfit, so his on-the-spot background check at a gun outlet came up clear.




Shooting: Movie theater in Aurora, Colorado
Date: 
July 20, 2012
Perpetrator: 
James E. Holmes
Guns: 
Holmes used a semiautomatic Smith & Wesson M&P15 (a variation on the military’s M16 weapons), a 12-gauge Remington 870 shotgun, and a semiautomatic .40-caliber Glock 22, killing 12 and injuring 70. TheNew York Times reports that these three guns are some of the most popular in the U.S.—so widely used, in fact, that a “three-gun competition” has been established to test gun enthusiasts’ proficiency on each in a target-shooting game of speed.
How he got them: 
All three guns were purchased legally in 2012 between May 22 and July 6 at three different Colorado gun stores.





Shooting: Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin
Date: 
Aug. 5, 2012
Perpetrator: 
Wade Michael Page
Gun: 
Like Holmes and Loughner, Page used a semiautomatic handgun. His was a Springfield 9 mm. Page killed six and injured four before killing himself.
How he got it: 
Page purchased the gun legally in a Milwaukee-area store. At the time of the shooting, the Brady Campaign on Gun Violence had named Wisconsin among the 10 states with the fewest gun restrictions.
.



Shooting: Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut
Date: 
Dec. 14, 2012
Perpetrator: 
Adam Lanza
Guns: 
First, Lanza shot and killed his mother with a .22-caliber Savage MK II-F bolt action rifle. At the school, Lanza used an AR-15 semiautomatic, like Holmes. Lanza killed 26 people in total and injured two before killing himself.
How he got them: 
Both guns belonged to Lanza’s mother.

.



Shooting: Washington Navy Yard in Washington, D.C.
Date: 
Sept. 16, 2013
Perpetrator: 
Aaron Alexis
Gun: 
Alexis began the attack with a Remington 870 12-gauge shotgun (he also took a 9 mm pistol from a police officer at the scene after shooting him). He killed 12 people and injured eight before killing himself.
How he got it: 
Two days before the massacre, Alexis bought his shotgun at a store in Northern Virginia that claims to be the “only gun shop inside the Beltway.” He initially inquired about buying a handgun, but because he was from out of state, the store would have had to ship it to a dealer in his home state. That’s when he went for the shotgun. Though he’d been arrested in 2004 after shooting out the tires of another man’s car and in 2010 after shooting his gun (accidentally, he said) through his ceiling into the apartment of his upstairs neighbor, neither charge was enough to sully his Virginia background check.

.



Shooting: Military base at Fort Hood, Texas
Date: 
April 2, 2014
Perpetrator: 
Ivan Lopez
Gun: 
.45-caliber Smith & Wesson M&P pistol. He killed three and injured 14 before killing himself.
How he got it: 
Lopez purchased his gun legally at the same Killeen, Texas, store that sold Hasan the gun he used in the first Fort Hood shooting. Because Lopez didn’t live on the base, he was not required to register his wea
.



Shooting: Jewish community center in Overland Park, Kansas
Date: 
April 13, 2014
Suspect: 
Frazier Glenn Miller Jr.
Guns:
 Remington Model 870 shotgun and a handgun. Frazier allegedly killed three people.
How he got them: 
John Mark Reidle of Missouri allegedly bought the shotgun at a Missouri Walmart four days before the massacre, because Miller’s former felony conviction prohibited him from owning a gun. The handgun is of unknown prove
.



Shooting: Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina
Date: 
June 18, 2015
Suspect: 
Dylann Roof
Gun: 
.45-caliber Glock. Roof killed nine people and injured one.
How he got it:
 A flaw in the FBI’s background check system allowed Roof to buy the handgun at a South Carolina store eight days after his 21st birthday. When the gun dealer asked the FBI for approval to sell the gun to Roof, the bureau noted that he’d recently been arrested and exercised its three-day investigation period to get more information. Two days later, an FBI agent found that Roof had not been convicted of the felony drug possession charge, so an immediate denial was not merited. She tried to contact the appropriate police department for more information, but because of a jurisdictional issue the agent couldn’t get the police report in time to make the three-day deadline. Had she gotten the report, she would have seen that Roof had admitted to drug possession, which would have kept him from obtaining the weapon.

.



Shooting: Two military centers in Chattanooga, Tennessee
Date: 
July 16, 2015
Perpetrator
: Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez
Guns: 
According to law enforcement, when police killed Abdulazeez, he was in possession of a 12-gauge shotgun, a 9 mm handgun, and an assault weapon along the lines of an AK-47. He killed five people and injured two.
How he got them:
 A friend of Abdulazeez’s said the gunman had bought four firearms from an online arms sale site, which allowed him to skirt a background check, but the claim has not been confirmed. At least some of the guns were obtained legally.





Shooting: Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon
Date: 
Oct. 1, 2015
Perpetrator: 
Chris Harper Mercer
Guns: 
Harper Mercer brought six guns with him on his shooting spree—five handguns and a rifle—and owned eight others, including pistols, four other rifles, and a shotgun. He killed nine people and injured seven before he was killed by police.
How he got them: 
All were purchased legally.

I didn't look at them all but I looked at several and they all purchased their guns legally. So what's your point?

Access to guns is to damn easy. What's your point, Obama saying so?

I'll just assume you were drunk with such an ignorant response to a simple question.

No not drunk. I just meant it is very easy to get a gun in this country and do what the killers on that list did. I also think knocking Obama because he showed some frustration is stupid. I think we established that the problem is  a combination of easy access to guns and mental illness. Why criticize Obama for telling the truth?

  I just meant it is very easy to get a gun in this country and do what the killers on that list did.

Right and what I meant was that making it harder would probably have not mattered in almost all of those cases.

I criticize Obama because it's getting more and more obvious he wants us to follow the lead of countries who have banned guns. He's not just "telling the truth"  he is advocating for banning guns!

What part of this is too hard to follow and understand he want to ban guns????

the president said.[b] “We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings,  “Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”
[/b]


Ways??? If you can't see what "Anyone who can't see he means then must be stupid.
Reply
#84
(10-04-2015, 10:48 AM)cletus1 Wrote:
(10-04-2015, 10:04 AM)tvguy Wrote:
(10-03-2015, 08:54 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(10-03-2015, 04:47 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(10-03-2015, 04:28 PM)cletus1 Wrote: How Mass Shooters Get Their Guns


Here are the origins of every gun used in the high-profile massacres of Obama’s presidency.
By Christina Cauterucci and Greta Weber


[Image: 151002_POL_guns-from-mass-shootings.jpg....large2.jpg]it is remarkably easy to get your hands on a gun in this country.








Photo illustration by Juliana Jiménez. Photos by Andrew Burton/Getty Images and Joern Pollex/Getty Images.


On Thursday, after Chris Harper Mercer shot and killed 9 people at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, President Obama gave the latest in a tragic series of addresses in response to mass shootings in the U.S. "It cannot be this easy for somebody who wants to inflict harm to get his or her hands on a gun," he said.
But it is remarkably easy to get your hands on a gun in this country. Of the 11 shootings that prompted Obama to give a public address, eight were committed by gunmen who’d bought at least some of their firearms legally, some just days before their massacres. Several had histories of criminal behavior and mental illness that fell just shy of prohibiting their gun purchases—and in one case, a bureaucratic slip-up in the routine FBI background check was at fault. Here’s how the guns in each attack came into the hands of t
.



Shooting: Military base at Fort Hood, Texas
Date: 
Nov. 5, 2009
Perpetrator: 
Nidal Hasan
Guns:
 FN Five-seven semiautomatic pistol and Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolver. He killed 13 people and injured more than 30.
How he got them: 
Guns Galore, a gun shop in Killeen, Texas, sold Hasan the gun legally three months before the shooting. He was not required to register the firearm on the base, because he didn’t reside there.

.



Shooting: Gabrielle Giffords constituent meeting in aTucson, Arizona, parking lot
Date: 
Jan. 8, 2011
Perpetrator: 
Jared Lee Loughner
Gun: 
Glock 19 9 mm semiautomatic handgun. Loughner killed six people and shot 13 more, including Rep. Giffords.
How he got it:
 Arizona, which has some of the laxest gun laws in the country, passed a law in 2010 that allowed people to buy guns for concealed carry without a permit. Though guns cannot be sold to people with severe mental illness and though Loughner was suspended from his community college for mental health issues, no court had ever declared him mentally unfit, so his on-the-spot background check at a gun outlet came up clear.




Shooting: Movie theater in Aurora, Colorado
Date: 
July 20, 2012
Perpetrator: 
James E. Holmes
Guns: 
Holmes used a semiautomatic Smith & Wesson M&P15 (a variation on the military’s M16 weapons), a 12-gauge Remington 870 shotgun, and a semiautomatic .40-caliber Glock 22, killing 12 and injuring 70. TheNew York Times reports that these three guns are some of the most popular in the U.S.—so widely used, in fact, that a “three-gun competition” has been established to test gun enthusiasts’ proficiency on each in a target-shooting game of speed.
How he got them: 
All three guns were purchased legally in 2012 between May 22 and July 6 at three different Colorado gun stores.





Shooting: Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin
Date: 
Aug. 5, 2012
Perpetrator: 
Wade Michael Page
Gun: 
Like Holmes and Loughner, Page used a semiautomatic handgun. His was a Springfield 9 mm. Page killed six and injured four before killing himself.
How he got it: 
Page purchased the gun legally in a Milwaukee-area store. At the time of the shooting, the Brady Campaign on Gun Violence had named Wisconsin among the 10 states with the fewest gun restrictions.
.



Shooting: Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut
Date: 
Dec. 14, 2012
Perpetrator: 
Adam Lanza
Guns: 
First, Lanza shot and killed his mother with a .22-caliber Savage MK II-F bolt action rifle. At the school, Lanza used an AR-15 semiautomatic, like Holmes. Lanza killed 26 people in total and injured two before killing himself.
How he got them: 
Both guns belonged to Lanza’s mother.

.



Shooting: Washington Navy Yard in Washington, D.C.
Date: 
Sept. 16, 2013
Perpetrator: 
Aaron Alexis
Gun: 
Alexis began the attack with a Remington 870 12-gauge shotgun (he also took a 9 mm pistol from a police officer at the scene after shooting him). He killed 12 people and injured eight before killing himself.
How he got it: 
Two days before the massacre, Alexis bought his shotgun at a store in Northern Virginia that claims to be the “only gun shop inside the Beltway.” He initially inquired about buying a handgun, but because he was from out of state, the store would have had to ship it to a dealer in his home state. That’s when he went for the shotgun. Though he’d been arrested in 2004 after shooting out the tires of another man’s car and in 2010 after shooting his gun (accidentally, he said) through his ceiling into the apartment of his upstairs neighbor, neither charge was enough to sully his Virginia background check.

.



Shooting: Military base at Fort Hood, Texas
Date: 
April 2, 2014
Perpetrator: 
Ivan Lopez
Gun: 
.45-caliber Smith & Wesson M&P pistol. He killed three and injured 14 before killing himself.
How he got it: 
Lopez purchased his gun legally at the same Killeen, Texas, store that sold Hasan the gun he used in the first Fort Hood shooting. Because Lopez didn’t live on the base, he was not required to register his wea
.



Shooting: Jewish community center in Overland Park, Kansas
Date: 
April 13, 2014
Suspect: 
Frazier Glenn Miller Jr.
Guns:
 Remington Model 870 shotgun and a handgun. Frazier allegedly killed three people.
How he got them: 
John Mark Reidle of Missouri allegedly bought the shotgun at a Missouri Walmart four days before the massacre, because Miller’s former felony conviction prohibited him from owning a gun. The handgun is of unknown prove
.



Shooting: Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina
Date: 
June 18, 2015
Suspect: 
Dylann Roof
Gun: 
.45-caliber Glock. Roof killed nine people and injured one.
How he got it:
 A flaw in the FBI’s background check system allowed Roof to buy the handgun at a South Carolina store eight days after his 21st birthday. When the gun dealer asked the FBI for approval to sell the gun to Roof, the bureau noted that he’d recently been arrested and exercised its three-day investigation period to get more information. Two days later, an FBI agent found that Roof had not been convicted of the felony drug possession charge, so an immediate denial was not merited. She tried to contact the appropriate police department for more information, but because of a jurisdictional issue the agent couldn’t get the police report in time to make the three-day deadline. Had she gotten the report, she would have seen that Roof had admitted to drug possession, which would have kept him from obtaining the weapon.

.



Shooting: Two military centers in Chattanooga, Tennessee
Date: 
July 16, 2015
Perpetrator
: Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez
Guns: 
According to law enforcement, when police killed Abdulazeez, he was in possession of a 12-gauge shotgun, a 9 mm handgun, and an assault weapon along the lines of an AK-47. He killed five people and injured two.
How he got them:
 A friend of Abdulazeez’s said the gunman had bought four firearms from an online arms sale site, which allowed him to skirt a background check, but the claim has not been confirmed. At least some of the guns were obtained legally.





Shooting: Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon
Date: 
Oct. 1, 2015
Perpetrator: 
Chris Harper Mercer
Guns: 
Harper Mercer brought six guns with him on his shooting spree—five handguns and a rifle—and owned eight others, including pistols, four other rifles, and a shotgun. He killed nine people and injured seven before he was killed by police.
How he got them: 
All were purchased legally.

I didn't look at them all but I looked at several and they all purchased their guns legally. So what's your point?

Access to guns is to damn easy. What's your point, Obama saying so?

I'll just assume you were drunk with such an ignorant response to a simple question.

No not drunk. I just meant it is very easy to get a gun in this country and do what the killers on that list did. I also think knocking Obama because he showed some frustration is stupid. I think we established that the problem is  a combination of easy access to guns and mental illness. Why criticize Obama for telling the truth?

We may be getting closer to a conversation. Obama was angry, and it showed. Yes, he thinks there are too many guns. But, laws and legislation are not going to work: There are millions of guns out there and there is no way to control who has them. That horse left the barn long ago. The president is not realistic about this. 

And the "mental problem" issue is a straw man too. The authorities can't interview everyone suspected of being angry, lashing out, or posting irrational statements on social media. It would take many thousands of people to get that done. 

One pundit I read recently (can't recall where) suggested that WE...the people ( Smiling) are the only hope. When we see behavior in someone we know that is jumping the tracks, we should alert the authorities. The father of this nut job in Roseburg said his son should never had access to that many guns. Duh! He also knew the guy was behaving strangely and was isolating himself and displaying lots of other behaviors that should have required attention. The dad didn't do squat. 

So maybe...just maybe, that is one solution or part of a solution. If we are close to someone who is "jumping the tracks" maybe we should do something. 

Remember when "Samiwhich" was ranting and raving and saying he had a gun and might just come to Oregon and look up the people who he hated? Maybe we should have acted, I dunno. Anyway, that kind of thing. 

In short: I don't know. Just tossing stuff against the wall and seeing if it will stick. This much we know: We are never going to do the Australian thing and buy back all (or even most) of the guns out there. Not going to happen. And, we know we have mentally ill folks all over the landscape but most don't shoot groups of people. That leaves us with SOMEBODY identifying the guys who "just might" be the next shooter. Scary thought, I know, to think we might all be watched. 

It make require just that. TVg, I'm watching you.  Razz
Reply
#85
There is no way the government is going to take people's guns. There is no way they will keep guns out of the hands of crazies. 

Meth... it's illegal... how's that working? It's not. Look at heroin... illegal... how's that working? It's not. 

If the government tries to take my guns... I can't protect myself from the bad guys who will still have their hands on guns. 

Our country needs a total overhaul on our mental health system. Some how we have to get parents to friggin PARENT... and if that means you get your psycho kid mental health help, do it! Which comes back around to the system actually working. 

My guess? Not a single mass murderer flew totally under the radar... some one some where noticed at some point that there was some thing wrong. 

Whether it is a person feeling they themselves need help; a parent, teacher, clergy, doctor, lawyer, friend, etc. see an issue... people need to know that they can (and should) speak up... that they will be heard... and can get the needed help.
Reply
#86
(10-04-2015, 12:10 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:  

We may be getting closer to a conversation. Obama was angry, and it showed. Yes, he thinks there are too many guns. But, laws and legislation are not going to work: There are millions of guns out there and there is no way to control who has them. That horse left the barn long ago. The president is not realistic about this. 

And the "mental problem" issue is a straw man too. The authorities can't interview everyone suspected of being angry, lashing out, or posting irrational statements on social media. It would take many thousands of people to get that done. 

One pundit I read recently (can't recall where) suggested that WE...the people ( Smiling) are the only hope. When we see behavior in someone we know that is jumping the tracks, we should alert the authorities. The father of this nut job in Roseburg said his son should never had access to that many guns. Duh! He also knew the guy was behaving strangely and was isolating himself and displaying lots of other behaviors that should have required attention. The dad didn't do squat. 

So maybe...just maybe, that is one solution or part of a solution. If we are close to someone who is "jumping the tracks" maybe we should do something. 

Remember when "Samiwhich" was ranting and raving and saying he had a gun and might just come to Oregon and look up the people who he hated? Maybe we should have acted, I dunno. Anyway, that kind of thing. 

In short: I don't know. Just tossing stuff against the wall and seeing if it will stick. This much we know: We are never going to do the Australian thing and buy back all (or even most) of the guns out there. Not going to happen. And, we know we have mentally ill folks all over the landscape but most don't shoot groups of people. That leaves us with SOMEBODY identifying the guys who "just might" be the next shooter. Scary thought, I know, to think we might all be watched. 

It make require just that. TVg, I'm watching you.  Razz

Pretty much Big Grin
Reply
#87
(10-04-2015, 02:16 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(10-04-2015, 12:10 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:  

We may be getting closer to a conversation. Obama was angry, and it showed. Yes, he thinks there are too many guns. But, laws and legislation are not going to work: There are millions of guns out there and there is no way to control who has them. That horse left the barn long ago. The president is not realistic about this. 

And the "mental problem" issue is a straw man too. The authorities can't interview everyone suspected of being angry, lashing out, or posting irrational statements on social media. It would take many thousands of people to get that done. 

One pundit I read recently (can't recall where) suggested that WE...the people ( Smiling) are the only hope. When we see behavior in someone we know that is jumping the tracks, we should alert the authorities. The father of this nut job in Roseburg said his son should never had access to that many guns. Duh! He also knew the guy was behaving strangely and was isolating himself and displaying lots of other behaviors that should have required attention. The dad didn't do squat. 

So maybe...just maybe, that is one solution or part of a solution. If we are close to someone who is "jumping the tracks" maybe we should do something. 

Remember when "Samiwhich" was ranting and raving and saying he had a gun and might just come to Oregon and look up the people who he hated? Maybe we should have acted, I dunno. Anyway, that kind of thing. 

In short: I don't know. Just tossing stuff against the wall and seeing if it will stick. This much we know: We are never going to do the Australian thing and buy back all (or even most) of the guns out there. Not going to happen. And, we know we have mentally ill folks all over the landscape but most don't shoot groups of people. That leaves us with SOMEBODY identifying the guys who "just might" be the next shooter. Scary thought, I know, to think we might all be watched. 

It make require just that. TVg, I'm watching you.  Razz

Pretty much Big Grin
I REALLY need an editor! The second word in the sentence above should be, of course, "might" and not make. My 6th grade teacher was right...she told me just drop out and get a job pumping gas. 
Reply
#88
(10-04-2015, 10:57 AM)Hugo Wrote: Cletus, when will you admit that ACCESS has never been tighter in our history, and these things didn't happen 40 years ago when guns were actually on school grounds in the pick ups of the students and teachers alike?

I repeat:  ACCESS HAS NEVER BEEN MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN NOW.  Can you deny that?

I don't know, but so what if it's a little harder to get a gun today. This country has a murder by gun problem today. Your argument is meaningless. Things change and people change. 
Reply
#89
(10-04-2015, 03:39 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(10-04-2015, 10:57 AM)Hugo Wrote: Cletus, when will you admit that ACCESS has never been tighter in our history, and these things didn't happen 40 years ago when guns were actually on school grounds in the pick ups of the students and teachers alike?

I repeat:  ACCESS HAS NEVER BEEN MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN NOW.  Can you deny that?

I don't know, but so what if it's a little harder to get a gun today. This country has a murder by gun problem today. Your argument is meaningless. Things change and people change. 

"Things and people change"...  Society has changed, therefore we must give up our freedoms to compensate.  Is that your position?
Reply
#90
(10-04-2015, 03:39 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(10-04-2015, 10:57 AM)Hugo Wrote: Cletus, when will you admit that ACCESS has never been tighter in our history, and these things didn't happen 40 years ago when guns were actually on school grounds in the pick ups of the students and teachers alike?

I repeat:  ACCESS HAS NEVER BEEN MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN NOW.  Can you deny that?

I don't know, but so what if it's a little harder to get a gun today. This country has a murder by gun problem today. Your argument is meaningless. Things change and people change. 

I don't think you understand his argument enough to call it meaningless.Or do you?

You say "I don't know, but so what if it's a little harder to get a gun today. This country has a murder by gun problem today" His point is that we have a bigger problem than ever EVEN though ACCESS HAS NEVER BEEN MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN NOW.
You act as if Hugo was Complaining that it's harder to get a gun now.. He wasn't .That wasn't his point. But you knew that didn't you, Great debater my ass, That style of avoiding what he said or acting like he said something else has Ponder written all over it.
Reply
#91
(10-04-2015, 04:40 PM)tvguy Wrote: Y
(10-04-2015, 03:39 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(10-04-2015, 10:57 AM)Hugo Wrote: Cletus, when will you admit that ACCESS has never been tighter in our history, and these things didn't happen 40 years ago when guns were actually on school grounds in the pick ups of the students and teachers alike?

I repeat:  ACCESS HAS NEVER BEEN MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN NOW.  Can you deny that?

I don't know, but so what if it's a little harder to get a gun today. This country has a murder by gun problem today. Your argument is meaningless. Things change and people change. 

I don't think you understand his argument enough to call it meaningless.Or do you?

You say "I don't know, but so what if it's a little harder to get a gun today. This country has a murder by gun problem today" His point is that we have a bigger problem than ever EVEN though ACCESS HAS NEVER BEEN MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN NOW.
You act as if Hugo was Complaining that it's harder to get a gun now.. He wasn't .That wasn't his point. But you knew that didn't you, Great debater my ass, That style of avoiding what he said or acting like he said something else has Ponder written all over it.

No TVguy, I understood what Hugo said. I understood the part you put in bold too. I knew Hugo was making the comparison argument that during the time of even less gun laws, violence from guns was also less. I said "so what" and do now again. 
Reply
#92
Okay, Here's a good example of how we deal with this stuff:

[b]High school shooting plot foiled, authorities say[/b] 

By Rong-Gong Lin II
 

Los Angeles Times
 

A day before a gunman in Oregon killed eight classmates and his college writing teacher, sheriff’s detectives in Northern California’s Tuolomne County foiled a plot by students to go on a shooting rampage at their high school near Yosemite National Park, authorities said.

The Summerville Union High School students, all male, had detailed plans that “included names of would-be victims, locations, methods in which the plan was to be carried out,” Sheriff Jim Mele told reporters at a news conference Saturday. The targets included other students and faculty members.

The boys confessed, Mele said, according to the Modesto Bee and KCRA-TV. Three were arrested Wednesday and a fourth detained Friday on suspicion of conspiracy to commit assault with deadly
 weapons, a statement provided by the sheriff’s office said.

“They were going to come on campus and shoot and kill as many people as possible at the campus,” Mele told the Bee.

The suspects were overheard by other students talking about their plans. Detectives later found evidence that the suspects planned to act during an upcoming campus event, the news organizations reported.

“Students noticed suspicious activity, and … they felt uneasy enough to go to staff,” the sheriff said in televised remarks.

The names of the suspects were not released because they are juveniles.

No weapons were found by detectives, but the students were planning to obtain them, the news organizations reported. No specific motive was disclosed.

The high school serves students in Tuolumne, about three hours east of San Francisco.

Reply
#93
No weapons were found by detectives, but the students were planning to obtain them, the news organizations reported. No specific motive was disclosed.


I wonder how they planned to obtain them?
Reply
#94
https://www.facebook.com/FoxNews/photos/...=3&theater
Reply
#95
Not my words.  I found them in a comments section of an article.  I think they say what I have tried to say here many times.  The truth.


Quote:The founders had just been in a war. The Revolutionary war. They recognized the double edged sword of needing a militia. The militia is comprised of all able bodied citizens. (folks like you and me) The militia is needed not only for fighting foreign invaders. So, on the one hand, we might need to call up able bodied citizens to form a militia. At the same time, the founders recognized the dangers of using a militia against the people. So the PEOPLE (you and me) should be able to be armed in the event that a tyrant took charge of a militia and turned them on the people.

Further, other states who formed their individual constitutions at the same time include the wording demonstrating these arms are not only for defense of the state, but also defense of individuals and property.

The 2nd Amendment exists to protect the right of the PEOPLE from government infringement of their right to possess the tools best designed for their defense. Just as it protects the government from censoring your free speech rights or your right to a trial. The Bill of Rights refers to only three principles. The Federal Government, the States and the PEOPLE. It is intended to be a harness on the government, restricting federal power, not the freedom of the people.

Read the Bill of Rights, and use this three principles theory.  Then read it again.  And again.  Read it until you GET it. 

This is why I refer to those who disagree with me on this issue, unamerican.  Un American, because you do NOT believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as written.  How can you possibly say you are an American if you fundamentally oppose it's founding documents?  It makes you a TRAITOR to America, plain and simple.
Reply
#96
(10-05-2015, 03:20 PM)Hugo Wrote: https://www.facebook.com/FoxNews/photos/...=3&theater
Reply
#97
(10-05-2015, 04:48 PM)Willie Krash Wrote:
(10-05-2015, 03:20 PM)Hugo Wrote: https://www.facebook.com/FoxNews/photos/...=3&theater

Laughing Laughing Laughing
Reply
#98
(10-05-2015, 04:40 PM)Hugo Wrote: Not my words.  I found them in a comments section of an article.  I think they say what I have tried to say here many times.  The truth.



Quote:The founders had just been in a war. The Revolutionary war. They recognized the double edged sword of needing a militia. The militia is comprised of all able bodied citizens. (folks like you and me) The militia is needed not only for fighting foreign invaders. So, on the one hand, we might need to call up able bodied citizens to form a militia. At the same time, the founders recognized the dangers of using a militia against the people. So the PEOPLE (you and me) should be able to be armed in the event that a tyrant took charge of a militia and turned them on the people.

Further, other states who formed their individual constitutions at the same time include the wording demonstrating these arms are not only for defense of the state, but also defense of individuals and property.

The 2nd Amendment exists to protect the right of the PEOPLE from government infringement of their right to possess the tools best designed for their defense. Just as it protects the government from censoring your free speech rights or your right to a trial. The Bill of Rights refers to only three principles. The Federal Government, the States and the PEOPLE. It is intended to be a harness on the government, restricting federal power, not the freedom of the people.

Read the Bill of Rights, and use this three principles theory.  Then read it again.  And again.  Read it until you GET it. 

This is why I refer to those who disagree with me on this issue, unamerican.  Un American, because you do NOT believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as written.  How can you possibly say you are an American if you fundamentally oppose it's founding documents?  It makes you a TRAITOR to America, plain and simple.

When fools start slinging around the traitor pejorative I stop paying attention. 
Reply
#99
(10-05-2015, 06:16 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(10-05-2015, 04:40 PM)Hugo Wrote: Not my words.  I found them in a comments section of an article.  I think they say what I have tried to say here many times.  The truth.




Quote:The founders had just been in a war. The Revolutionary war. They recognized the double edged sword of needing a militia. The militia is comprised of all able bodied citizens. (folks like you and me) The militia is needed not only for fighting foreign invaders. So, on the one hand, we might need to call up able bodied citizens to form a militia. At the same time, the founders recognized the dangers of using a militia against the people. So the PEOPLE (you and me) should be able to be armed in the event that a tyrant took charge of a militia and turned them on the people.

Further, other states who formed their individual constitutions at the same time include the wording demonstrating these arms are not only for defense of the state, but also defense of individuals and property.

The 2nd Amendment exists to protect the right of the PEOPLE from government infringement of their right to possess the tools best designed for their defense. Just as it protects the government from censoring your free speech rights or your right to a trial. The Bill of Rights refers to only three principles. The Federal Government, the States and the PEOPLE. It is intended to be a harness on the government, restricting federal power, not the freedom of the people.

Read the Bill of Rights, and use this three principles theory.  Then read it again.  And again.  Read it until you GET it. 

This is why I refer to those who disagree with me on this issue, unamerican.  Un American, because you do NOT believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as written.  How can you possibly say you are an American if you fundamentally oppose it's founding documents?  It makes you a TRAITOR to America, plain and simple.

When fools start slinging around the traitor pejorative I stop paying attention. 

Then I INVITE you to join others, and stop responding to anything I post.
Reply
We still don't have any proposals from the left on how they plan on getting guns from criminals, just how to keep honest people from getting them. Dontray Mills walked away free for buying and selling guns illegally, yet obozo and the heirarchy on the left have you guys believing guns are the problem. Hey clete better be careful in India. Remember last time you dealt with those guys you got some free meals and lodging.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)