Executive Order for Gun Control - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

Rochard · 01-09-2013, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

what does mentally retarded have to do with being a psycho?

You met my friend John once. No way he should be allowed to own firearms.

tony286 · 01-09-2013, 05:55 PM

Its funny the NRA said nothing about things have to tighten up. How these maniacs and irresponsible gun owners make us all look bad and things have to tighten up. The president wasnt against guns ,he signed a fucking bill that allowed people to carry in fed parks. But the NRA cant do that because they dont work for gun owners they work for gun companies and if the rules are tightened up. They cant sell as many guns.

Rochard · 01-09-2013, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xenigo

Laws forbidding the mentally ill from owning firearms are already on the books.

http://m.ncsl.org/issues-research/ju...tally-ill.aspx

I don't know why we're discussing this as if it's some new concept.

Oddly enough, this has never come up in discussion before. When I went to purchase my first firearm, they told me the only restriction was that I not be a felon. I've never heard of any mental health laws for firearm ownership. (I am in California.)

For me this is no longer about firearms. We have mentally ill people just walking around, buying firearms, and worse - driving on our streets - and we aren't stopping them.

Too much lead paint or something.

tony286 · 01-09-2013, 05:58 PM

I dont think James Holmes would of passed a mental health test
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rs-reveal.html

Rochard · 01-09-2013, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vdbucks

I'm pretty sure as a 6'3" well built man, I could knock several heads off with a bat, I could walk through a crowd and stab several people with a knife, I could poison a ton of people with pure nicotine, I could do a lot of different things. If I am intent on killing people, I'm going to kill as many as I can, regardless of what tool I use.

Besides, none of those mass murder guys needed to use an assault rifle to inflict the damage they did. A simple hand gun could have cause just as much.

So no matter how you look at it, your arguments ignore the facts and as such, are completely invalid.

And yet, they are not designed for killing but manage to kill far more people than guns do. Your blatant disregard of the facts do not make them any less factual. And not every auto related incident is an accident, just as every firearm related incident isn't intended.

But we are not talking about you or how tall you are. We are talking about mass murderers, who all seem to be nothing more than wimps and losers who dream of being in the military but are afraid of their own shadow.

Robbie · 01-09-2013, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP-pornshooter

yeah sorry, but carrying a gun should not be a right but a privilege.

AR's have no use in civilian hands, and does much more damage than it does the public any good.

What? Maybe you still haven't heard of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? IT IS A RIGHT. Not a damn "privilege"

And as a right...it doesn't have to have a "use". If I want one, I can have one. End of story.

If, as a society, we decide we don't want that anymore...then let's repeal the 2nd Amendment.

I see both sides argument...but as long as there is a 2nd Amendment then guns should be available to all legal U.S. citizens. End of story.

TCLGirls · 01-09-2013, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GFED

I'm talking about certain people... what if we decide that people on welfare or people that didn't pay enough taxes didn't get to vote... why not also restrict to to only those with a college degree of 4 or more years... sounds good right?

Minors and felons are "certain people"...and those "certain people" are restricted from voting. Thus, some people can vote, while other people cannot vote. Just like some firearms should remain legal to own, while other firearms should be illegal to own.

tony286 · 01-09-2013, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

What? Maybe you still haven't heard of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? IT IS A RIGHT. Not a damn "privilege"

And as a right...it doesn't have to have a "use". If I want one, I can have one. End of story.

If, as a society, we decide we don't want that anymore...then let's repeal the 2nd Amendment.

I see both sides argument...but as long as there is a 2nd Amendment then guns should be available to all legal U.S. citizens. End of story.

actually everyone seems to forget the well formed militia part of the sentence.

Rochard · 01-09-2013, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

I give up ? shoot me.

.

I give up too. From this day forward anyone can purchase a firearm. Can't shoot straight because you are blind as a bat, no problem, sign here.

(Btw, assault rifles are cheap!)

TCLGirls · 01-09-2013, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

What? Maybe you still haven't heard of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? IT IS A RIGHT. Not a damn "privilege"

And as a right...it doesn't have to have a "use". If I want one, I can have one. End of story.

If, as a society, we decide we don't want that anymore...then let's repeal the 2nd Amendment.

I see both sides argument...but as long as there is a 2nd Amendment then guns should be available to all legal U.S. citizens. End of story.

Do you think that civil rights are absolute?

1st Amendment rights are not absolute (illegal to slander someone etc, illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater, CP is illegal too). 2nd Amendment is not absolute either. Better believe that the majority of people in this country do not want felons being able to legally own firearms...US Citizen or not.

Rochard · 01-09-2013, 06:04 PM

See, this is what I am talking about:
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/...tally-ill.aspx

California law:

Quote:

A person shall not have in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control, or purchase or receive, or attempt to purchase or receive, any firearms whatsoever or any other deadly weapon for a period of six months whenever he or she communicates to a licensed psychotherapist a serious threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or victims. Licensed psychotherapists are required to immediately report to a local law enforcement agency the identity of a person who has communicated a serious threat of violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or victims.

But it's still not part of a background check.

Robbie · 01-09-2013, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

Do you think that civil rights are absolute?

1st Amendment rights are not absolute (illegal to slander someone etc, illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater, CP is illegal too). 2nd Amendment is not absolute either. Better believe that the majority of people in this country do not want felons being able to legally own firearms...US Citizen or not.

You may have noticed the part where I said "legal"... meaning non-felons.

None of it matters though...PLENTY of felons have guns. They just steal them or buy stolen ones on the black market.

And YES...for any non-felon LEGAL citizen they should be able to own firearms WITHOUT any laws that infringe on that in any way.

I'll repeat it so nobody can misunderstand: If, as a society, we decide that this is NOT what we want...then REPEAL THE 2nd AMENDMENT.

Robbie · 01-09-2013, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

actually everyone seems to forget the well formed militia part of the sentence.

The Supreme Court didn't seem to "forget" that. They ruled it means what I am saying. That Citizens have the RIGHT to own firearms.

Instead of trying to nitpick words and try to figure out what the 2nd Amendment means...let's just either repeal it or shut the fuck up and realize that there are crazy people in this world and big daddy govt. can not protect us from everything no matter how many laws they pass.

GFED · 01-09-2013, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

Minors and felons are "certain people"...and those "certain people" are restricted from voting. Thus, some people can vote, while other people cannot vote. Just like some firearms should remain legal to own, while other firearms should be illegal to own.

Minors and felons are already restricted from owning firearms. Most "gun nuts" agree to the regulations on fully automatic firearms and other class 3 weapons. You want to ban certain guns for the way they look, and for certain evil features such as a bayonet lug.

I'm so glad they outlawed balisong knives and nunchucks because they were so much better at killing people than other weapons.

JP-pornshooter · 01-09-2013, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

The Supreme Court didn't seem to "forget" that. They ruled it means what I am saying. That Citizens have the RIGHT to own firearms.

Instead of trying to nitpick words and try to figure out what the 2nd Amendment means...let's just either repeal it or shut the fuck up and realize that there are crazy people in this world and big daddy govt. can not protect us from everything no matter how many laws they pass.

i said "should" be a privilege, not a basic human right.
and yes if that is how the 2nd amendment is authored, then i think we need to change it.
but i would rather just restrict AR's / heavy ammo / large clips etc.
i know some folks in this thread thinks these murderers would just find other ways to mass murder, i dont really agree.
most of these murderers are in love with their guns and if they didnt have guns they would probably never murder anyone.

GFED · 01-09-2013, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP-pornshooter

most of these murderers are in love with their guns and if they didnt have guns they would probably never murder anyone.

Robbie · 01-09-2013, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP-pornshooter

most of these murderers are in love with their guns and if they didnt have guns they would probably never murder anyone.

That's just not true.

Serial killers almost NEVER use a gun. Jeffrey Dahmer didn't. Ted Bundy didn't. The list goes on and on.

A lunatic gets his hands on a gun every once in a while and starts shooting. It's insane, but it's a dangerous world.

I'd like to be able to stop it too. But taking away the rights granted to us as U.S. citizens isn't really the way to do that in my opinion.

As I said earlier...big daddy govt. can't control EVERYTHING (even though they try to).

You simply can not stop a crazed person from doing what these people did. Even if you don't accept that they would have simply used a different method (remember what Timothy McVeigh did in Oklahoma City), you still have to understand that if they REALLY wanted to only use a gun...then they would simply steal one or get one off the black market.

Criminals and homicidal maniacs don't obey the law. And to guys like that, nothing will stop them from doing what they are hell-bent (literally) on doing.

Minte · 01-09-2013, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

But we are not talking about you or how tall you are. We are talking about mass murderers, who all seem to be nothing more than wimps and losers who dream of being in the military but are afraid of their own shadow.

The guy that shot up the Sikh temple in Milwaukee last summer was an Army Vet.

TCLGirls · 01-09-2013, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

You may have noticed the part where I said "legal"... meaning non-felons.

None of it matters though...PLENTY of felons have guns. They just steal them or buy stolen ones on the black market.

And YES...for any non-felon LEGAL citizen they should be able to own firearms WITHOUT any laws that infringe on that in any way.

I'll repeat it so nobody can misunderstand: If, as a society, we decide that this is NOT what we want...then REPEAL THE 2nd AMENDMENT.

No, I clearly read what you posted...which was: "...as long as there is a 2nd Amendment then guns should be available to all legal U.S. citizens. End of story."

A felon is still a "legal US Citizen". Just because one commits a felony does not mean they automatically become an "illegal US Citizen" whatever that means.

And now you are backtracking and saying: "any non-felon LEGAL citizen they should be able to own firearms WITHOUT any laws that infringe on that in any way."
So I guess you promote the idea of children being able to purchase/own firearms too? You do know that "non-felon LEGAL citizen" includes children born in the USA right?

Why repeal the 2nd Amendment when all society has to do is place restrictions on the 2nd Amendment...just like there are restrictions on every other civil right.

TCLGirls · 01-09-2013, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GFED

Minors and felons are already restricted from owning firearms. Most "gun nuts" agree to the regulations on fully automatic firearms and other class 3 weapons. You want to ban certain guns for the way they look, and for certain evil features such as a bayonet lug.

I'm so glad they outlawed balisong knives and nunchucks because they were so much better at killing people than other weapons.

So now that you are off your "certain people" trip...I own multiple firearms that might look "scary", so your assumption about me is wrong.

tony286 · 01-09-2013, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

That's just not true.

Serial killers almost NEVER use a gun. Jeffrey Dahmer didn't. Ted Bundy didn't. The list goes on and on.

A lunatic gets his hands on a gun every once in a while and starts shooting. It's insane, but it's a dangerous world.

I'd like to be able to stop it too. But taking away the rights granted to us as U.S. citizens isn't really the way to do that in my opinion.

As I said earlier...big daddy govt. can't control EVERYTHING (even though they try to).

You simply can not stop a crazed person from doing what these people did. Even if you don't accept that they would have simply used a different method (remember what Timothy McVeigh did in Oklahoma City), you still have to understand that if they REALLY wanted to only use a gun...then they would simply steal one or get one off the black market.

Criminals and homicidal maniacs don't obey the law. And to guys like that, nothing will stop them from doing what they are hell-bent (literally) on doing.

I dont think the movie theater killer or the sandy hook killer could of bought guns on the street they were meek and not correct. Chances are they would of got their money stolen and the asses kicked if they tried to buy guns on the street.

Robbie · 01-09-2013, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

I dont think the movie theater killer or the sandy hook killer could of bought guns on the street they were meek and not correct. Chances are they would of got their money stolen and the asses kicked if they tried to buy guns on the street.

Maybe...you and I can only guess on that.

Robbie · 01-09-2013, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

And now you are backtracking and saying: "any non-felon LEGAL citizen they should be able to own firearms WITHOUT any laws that infringe on that in any way."
So I guess you promote the idea of children being able to purchase/own firearms too? You do know that "non-felon LEGAL citizen" includes children born in the USA right?

I didn't communicate what I meant.
I'll say it again so you won't think I'm "backtracking": I meant any citizen who could legally buy a gun. That would not include felons. My bad for not wording it correctly.

Also...you "guess" wrong.
Children can not purchase a fire arm. They are minors. They don't have the full rights of an adult.

As for "owning" fire arms. My daddy gave me a shotgun when I was 6 years old.
There were guns all over the place in my family. My grandparents had rifles in their home and vehicles. So did my dad. We were raised learning to shoot.

In the small town I lived in...everybody had guns. And all my little buddies at school all had rifles as well. We would all go hunting together as kids in my families cattle pastures (thousands of acres of woods). It was considered normal. Nobody blinked an eye about it (and there wasn't much crime either lol)

Not sure if I'd want to hand TODAYS children a gun or not. lol
Those little bastards spend way too much time killing thousands of people on video games. A few of them might think it's cool to do it in real life too.

Vendzilla · 01-10-2013, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GFED

You want to ban certain guns for the way they look, and for certain evil features such as a bayonet lug.

I never understood this, when you run out of bullets, your knife on the end of your gun they want to make illegal? So they are going after knives now?

BlackCrayon · 01-10-2013, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minte

The guy that shot up the Sikh temple in Milwaukee last summer was an Army Vet.

but he was a loser who was kicked out and also a white supremacist.

BlackCrayon · 01-10-2013, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

I dont think the movie theater killer or the sandy hook killer could of bought guns on the street they were meek and not correct. Chances are they would of got their money stolen and the asses kicked if they tried to buy guns on the street.

If someone like Holmes had to buy guns at a gun shop rather than online, he might never of been served. All it took was listening to his voice mail message from a run range to determine he was nuts and not allow him into their gun club. why people are allowed to buy any kind of firearms is beyond me. at the very least that should be stopped.

JP-pornshooter · 01-10-2013, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

That's just not true.

Serial killers almost NEVER use a gun. Jeffrey Dahmer didn't. Ted Bundy didn't. The list goes on and on.

A lunatic gets his hands on a gun every once in a while and starts shooting. It's insane, but it's a dangerous world.

I'd like to be able to stop it too. But taking away the rights granted to us as U.S. citizens isn't really the way to do that in my opinion.

As I said earlier...big daddy govt. can't control EVERYTHING (even though they try to).

You simply can not stop a crazed person from doing what these people did. Even if you don't accept that they would have simply used a different method (remember what Timothy McVeigh did in Oklahoma City), you still have to understand that if they REALLY wanted to only use a gun...then they would simply steal one or get one off the black market.

Criminals and homicidal maniacs don't obey the law. And to guys like that, nothing will stop them from doing what they are hell-bent (literally) on doing.

Robbie, I like and respect your opinion and we share many of those views.
In this case we are talking apples and oranges..

Serial killers, school-mass shooters and terrorists are not classified in one group.
They are three distinct different groups of murderers, for the purpose of this discussion really we need not include serial killers or terrorists.
Terrorists are a big threat but not typically someone with a single gun taking down random victims. Usually like McVeigh they target something big and usually very targeted.
Serial killers are also motivated by certain acts or victim targets, these killers are seriously psycho deranged but they dont have a death wish and do not want to get caught.

Mass shooters (columbine / colorado movie theater and recent school shootings) typically want to go out as a cowboy, they all use firearms (guns)
refer to this list from wiki which clearly shows all these incidents were carried out using firearms, not poison or piano string etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...llers#Americas

Robbie · 01-10-2013, 12:24 PM

JP I know what you're saying.

I'm just pointing out that there are a lot of crazy people out there who kill in a lot of different ways. And yeah...these "copycat" school shootings (thank you CNN for running these stories 24 hours a day/ 7 days a week) are guys who plan them with guns.

And if I could wave a magic wand and make guns non-existent, I would.

Having said that...the only true way to do this is to repeal the 2nd amendment. And then give it a few decades for guns to get old and the supply to be down to a manageable level as cops take them from captured criminals, they get old and uncared for (except by gun collectors), and ammunition begins to dwindle.

And even then...there will still be a random mass shooting here and there.

crockett · 01-10-2013, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vdbucks

That depends on how you look at it...

The people can't exactly stand up against a tyrannical government armed with only pistols...

I dunno we saw several countries in the middle east stand up to their tyrannical govt's with just numbers in the streets & protesting. What are the odds that a single gun nut will leave his house and actually protest anything out side of being a forum warrior.

Occupy Wall Street was the first real movement of that type in the US since the 60's. Americans by far are very out spoken about our rights but very few actually do anything to protect them. The govt could ban guns and 99% of the pro gun people would likely just try to hide what they could and do nothing but talk about it on the internet.

Rochard · 01-10-2013, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Serial killers almost NEVER use a gun. Jeffrey Dahmer didn't. Ted Bundy didn't. The list goes on and on.

But don't you see the difference?

Jeffrey Dahmer killed 17 people over a long period of time. The shooter in CT killed two dozen school kids in two or three minutes....

Rochard · 01-10-2013, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minte

The guy that shot up the Sikh temple in Milwaukee last summer was an Army Vet.

And your point is? Army vets go off their rocker too.

The shooter in CT fits the profile - weak, loner, wanted to be "part of the club" so badly that he surrounded himself with dozens of military posters and pictures of hardware, but had no chance of making it.

vdbucks · 01-10-2013, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

But don't you see the difference?

Jeffrey Dahmer killed 17 people over a long period of time. The shooter in CT killed two dozen school kids in two or three minutes....

So again, you don't care about people getting killed.. just so long as they aren't killed by guns?

That's about the only thing that you've said throughout this entire debate...

PornoMonster · 01-10-2013, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vdbucks

So again, you don't care about people getting killed.. just so long as they aren't killed by guns?

That's about the only thing that you've said throughout this entire debate...

Ding Ding Ding We have a winner.

If they are spread out, no big deal.
Wonder what ones suffered more pain? Not sure about this guy and his killings but BTK guy, wow, I think I would want an AR-15 to kill me not the BTK guy.

JP-pornshooter · 01-10-2013, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vdbucks

So again, you don't care about people getting killed.. just so long as they aren't killed by guns?

That's about the only thing that you've said throughout this entire debate...

Quote:

Originally Posted by PornoMonster

Ding Ding Ding We have a winner.

If they are spread out, no big deal.
Wonder what ones suffered more pain? Not sure about this guy and his killings but BTK guy, wow, I think I would want an AR-15 to kill me not the BTK guy.

really?
we are talking about gun control so it seems to make sense to discuss the incidents related to gun violence.

Rochard · 01-10-2013, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vdbucks

So again, you don't care about people getting killed.. just so long as they aren't killed by guns?

That's about the only thing that you've said throughout this entire debate...

Not so much. This less about guns and gun control for me as it is a health care issue.

The guy who shot the firemen killed his grandmother with a hammer, why was he ever released from prison? The kid in CT was a loner who locked himself in the basement of a million dollar house and surrounded himself with posters of military hardware while playing violent video games.

Putting security guards in school is already too late - dozens of steps should be taken before then to ensure that this never happens. The very first step is understanding why these people "slip through the system" in the first place.

Jeffrey Dahmer too fell through the cracks.

The problem is more people are having mental issues combined with the ready availability of firearms.

But in the mean time, more guns that shoot more bullets more faster is not the solution.

Robbie · 01-10-2013, 06:01 PM

Rochard... if our society ever allows the govt. to forcibly incarcerate everyone who "acts crazy"...you, me, and 90% of the people would be detained. lol

People like Jeffrey Dahmer didn't "slip through the cracks". He never did anything to "slip through". He was a smart guy and normal in every way...except he secretly wanted to kill and eat young gay guys.

WTF are we supposed to do...read people's minds? We can't. And we can't let the govt. start hauling people off because they MIGHT do something crazy.

That sounds like the Nazi's or The Soviet Union Secret Police.

As far as numbers of people killed and time it took to kill them...what the fuck difference does that make in the discussion? Dead is dead.

And if you INSIST on that kind of wrong-headed reasoning...then realize this: Timothy McVeigh killed 19 children under the age of SIX YEAR OLD in Oklahoma City in about a split second. He did NOT use a gun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

Rochard · 01-10-2013, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Rochard... if our society ever allows the govt. to forcibly incarcerate everyone who "acts crazy"...you, me, and 90% of the people would be detained. lol

People like Jeffrey Dahmer didn't "slip through the cracks". He never did anything to "slip through". He was a smart guy and normal in every way...except he secretly wanted to kill and eat young gay guys.

WTF are we supposed to do...read people's minds? We can't. And we can't let the govt. start hauling people off because they MIGHT do something crazy.

That sounds like the Nazi's or The Soviet Union Secret Police.

As far as numbers of people killed and time it took to kill them...what the fuck difference does that make in the discussion? Dead is dead.

And if you INSIST on that kind of wrong-headed reasoning...then realize this: Timothy McVeigh killed 19 children under the age of SIX YEAR OLD in Oklahoma City in about a split second. He did NOT use a gun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

They slip through the cracks every day. The guy who shot the firemen killed his grand mother with a hammer. The kid in CT was a loner who locked himself up in the basemen of a million dollar house and surrounded himself by posters of military hardware while playing violent video games.

And again, this isn't about guns. Don't say "He did NOT use a gun". You are talking about guns, and I'm talking about mental health here.

Timothy McVeigh didn't kill with a gun, but no one thought he was odd? He brought firearms to school to impress his friends.

But the solution here isn't more guns. More guns isn't going to protect us. All it does is give mentally ill people easier access to guns, be it legally or illegally.

Yet again today, in Taft California, there was another school shooting - a student brought a shotgun into school and shot a classmate. Armed guards aren't the answer; The school pays $50k a year for an armed guard who just happened to call in sick the day he was needed the most. Then again, chances are he would have been too late and the kid would have gotten shot anyhow.

We have a massive crisis here - people are walking into schools and churches and malls and theatres and just fucking shooting people. The fucking NRA, the only organization who can help us here, the only solution they have is "more guns".

The NRA is going to cost us the 2nd amendment.

Robbie · 01-10-2013, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

They slip through the cracks every day. The guy who shot the firemen killed his grand mother with a hammer. The kid in CT was a loner who locked himself up in the basemen of a million dollar house and surrounded himself by posters of military hardware while playing violent video games.

Yet again today, in Taft California, there was another school shooting - a student brought a shotgun into school and shot a classmate.

No, you SPECIFICALLY said Jeffrey Dahmer "slipped through the cracks". I pointed out that "no", he didn't. Neither did Ted Bundy. Or a person like Susan Smith. The list goes on and on and on.

An yes, a guy who committed murder with a hammer on his grandmother should never be let out of prison. But the prisons are very overcrowded at the moment because of the insane "war on drugs".

As far as your description of the MAN in CT. who shot those kids...you just described millions of guys in the U.S. (minus the million dollar house you claim).

The Taft shooting is looking to be a kid getting bullied by another kid and snapping.

All I'm saying is...repeal the fucking Second Amendment before Obama starts acting like Bush with these "Executive Orders" and we get closer and closer to having a "king" instead of a third branch of govt. that is supposed to be equal to the other two.

All your pondering on "mental health" is useless. Nobody (especially the federal govt.) has the money to institutionalize all of those people even IF they volunteered to be put away.

tony286 · 01-10-2013, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

No, you SPECIFICALLY said Jeffrey Dahmer "slipped through the cracks". I pointed out that "no", he didn't. Neither did Ted Bundy. Or a person like Susan Smith. The list goes on and on and on.

An yes, a guy who committed murder with a hammer on his grandmother should never be let out of prison. But the prisons are very overcrowded at the moment because of the insane "war on drugs".

As far as your description of the MAN in CT. who shot those kids...you just described millions of guys in the U.S. (minus the million dollar house you claim).

The Taft shooting is looking to be a kid getting bullied by another kid and snapping.

All I'm saying is...repeal the fucking Second Amendment before Obama starts acting like Bush with these "Executive Orders" and we get closer and closer to having a "king" instead of a third branch of govt. that is supposed to be equal to the other two.

All your pondering on "mental health" is useless. Nobody (especially the federal govt.) has the money to institutionalize all of those people even IF they volunteered to be put away.

Old Jeff was showing odd behavior as a kid
Pre-Teen Years
http://crime.about.com/od/serial/a/dahmer.htm
In 1966, the Dahmers moved to Bath, Ohio. Dahmer's insecurities grew after the move and his shyness kept him from having many friends. While his peers were busy listening to the latest songs, Dahmer was busy collecting road kill and stripping the animal carcasses and saving the bones.

DTK · 01-10-2013, 08:25 PM

Sorry to interrupt any 'Count Chocula is coming for all your guns' hysteria with a quick reality check

The 2nd Amendment (which i strongly believe in) DOES NOT guarantee the right of any US citizen to own ANY weapon they choose.

and btw, polls show that rank and file NRA members are in favor of sensible gun laws (ie re-instate the assault weapons ban, no guns for people with history of mental problems and/or violence). NRA leadership ignores that because they are paid whores for the gun manufacturers.

PornoMonster · 01-10-2013, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP-pornshooter

really?
we are talking about gun control so it seems to make sense to discuss the incidents related to gun violence.

Right, and it is the bandwagon of BS.

Jump on...

Let's not look at the real issues..

GrantMercury · 01-10-2013, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vdbucks

That depends on how you look at it...

The people can't exactly stand up against a tyrannical government armed with only pistols...

Give up this fucking Rambo fantasy. Grow the fuck up.

1. The government isn't coming for you.

2. If they were, your rat-a-tat-tat wouldn't stop them anyway.

3. See #1.

GrantMercury · 01-10-2013, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DTK

Sorry to interrupt any 'Count Chocula is coming for all your guns' hysteria...

Robbie · 01-10-2013, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

Old Jeff was showing odd behavior as a kid
Pre-Teen Years

In 1966, the Dahmers moved to Bath, Ohio. Dahmer's insecurities grew after the move and his shyness kept him from having many friends. While his peers were busy listening to the latest songs, Dahmer was busy collecting road kill and stripping the animal carcasses and saving the bones.

Again, that just described a LOT of goth-acting kids.

Using that logic, people would have said that me and my buddies were probably going to kill people because we were the long haired, cigarette smoking, druggie, Pink Floyd-listening group of shy outsiders while our "peers" "were busy listening" to KC and The Sunshine Band in the 1970's.

Just because teenagers act out trying to be rebellious and original doesn't mean that it's a "sign" that they are going to grow up and eat young gay guys they pick up at the club.

As I understand it...all of Dahmer's neighbors were shocked at what happened because he was such nice guy.

Barry-xlovecam · 01-10-2013, 11:17 PM

Quote:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
Excerpted:

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2?53.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment .

Read the decision.

The Disneyland drama can continue but the US Supreme Court rarely reverses its decisions.

If they want to regulate mass murderers in some way fine but it is after the fact and will not prevent mass murders from occurring.

An AR15 assault rifle might not pass muster as "unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." Its unrestricted sale might be regulated. However, "connected with service in a militia" in its broadest sense in connection with national defense might be argued.

The NFA banned machineguns and other gangster weapons in 1934. So all gangster killings ended then (not). There are over 100 million serviceable firearms in the possession of the US population. There were 11,101 homicides attributed to firearms -- that is a pretty small percentage of the operable firearms in circulation.

Treating the "disease" of criminal behavior with firearms is going to be more effective than treating the "symptoms" of misuse of firearms by a very small percentage of people.

adult-help · 01-10-2013, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantMercury

Give up this fucking Rambo fantasy. Grow the fuck up.

1. The government isn't coming for you.

2. If they were, your rat-a-tat-tat wouldn't stop them anyway.

3. See #1.

exactly! cant believe how paranoid some people are.

vdbucks · 01-11-2013, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP-pornshooter

really?
we are talking about gun control so it seems to make sense to discuss the incidents related to gun violence.

In a proper debate, people compare various sets of facts and statistics that further strengthens whichever side of the debate they're on.

Faux debates on the other hand, such as this one, are when people completely ignore the facts and focus purely on fantasy and speculation in order to make their argument seem valid.

So, it's up to you to decide how you'd like to carry on the debate. I choose to consider all the facts and statistics from related scenarios as opposed to blindly picking a side because the mainstream media is feeding me bullshit.

For example, not one of you has properly addressed the simple fact that automobiles lead to more than twice as many injuries and deaths than all firearm related incidents combined. But because automobile related incidents aren't force fed every day by the mainstream media, then you people don't really care. All you care about is latching on to whatever the 'hot topic' on the "news" is, and are are completely ignorant to any and everything else around you.

So it doesn't matter whether your false notions are based around all guns, handguns, assault rifles, shotguns, or whatever; the facts remain the same. But again, not one of you "anti gun" supporters seem to actually care about the facts; nor do you seem to care whether or not people die, or how many, so long as the death wasn't caused by a firearm. And this is quite simply, absolute nonsense.

WuTang · 01-11-2013, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantMercury

1. The government isn't coming for you.

Prove it. Otherwise, suck a dick. WHEN they do come, I'll be sure to mistake you for one of them.

vdbucks · 01-11-2013, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

We have a massive crisis here - people are walking into schools and churches and malls and theatres and just fucking shooting people.

The truly sad part is how none of you "anti gun" advocates seem to realize that the sudden increase of mass shootings is just a little too convenient... like all of a sudden the mainstream media and political figureheads start talking about banning guns and then all of a sudden, mass shootings increase tenfold...

But no.. we mustn't talk about those things less the mainstream media and their faithful followers start calling us "conspiracy theorists".

WuTang · 01-11-2013, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vdbucks

The truly sad part is how none of you "anti gun" advocates seem to realize that the sudden increase of mass shootings is just a little too convenient... like all of a sudden the mainstream media and political figureheads start talking about banning guns and then all of a sudden, mass shootings increase tenfold...

But no.. we mustn't talk about those things less the mainstream media and their faithful followers start calling us "conspiracy theorists".

Quoted for truth.

Theories at least have a base in logic.

01-10-2013, 12:24 PM	#128
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,958	JP I know what you're saying. I'm just pointing out that there are a lot of crazy people out there who kill in a lot of different ways. And yeah...these "copycat" school shootings (thank you CNN for running these stories 24 hours a day/ 7 days a week) are guys who plan them with guns. And if I could wave a magic wand and make guns non-existent, I would. Having said that...the only true way to do this is to repeal the 2nd amendment. And then give it a few decades for guns to get old and the supply to be down to a manageable level as cops take them from captured criminals, they get old and uncared for (except by gun collectors), and ammunition begins to dwindle. And even then...there will still be a random mass shooting here and there. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

01-10-2013, 06:01 PM	#136
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,958	Rochard... if our society ever allows the govt. to forcibly incarcerate everyone who "acts crazy"...you, me, and 90% of the people would be detained. lol People like Jeffrey Dahmer didn't "slip through the cracks". He never did anything to "slip through". He was a smart guy and normal in every way...except he secretly wanted to kill and eat young gay guys. WTF are we supposed to do...read people's minds? We can't. And we can't let the govt. start hauling people off because they MIGHT do something crazy. That sounds like the Nazi's or The Soviet Union Secret Police. As far as numbers of people killed and time it took to kill them...what the fuck difference does that make in the discussion? Dead is dead. And if you INSIST on that kind of wrong-headed reasoning...then realize this: Timothy McVeigh killed 19 children under the age of SIX YEAR OLD in Oklahoma City in about a split second. He did NOT use a gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com Last edited by Robbie; 01-10-2013 at 06:03 PM..

01-10-2013, 08:25 PM	#140
DTK Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: The 510 Posts: 4,545	Sorry to interrupt any 'Count Chocula is coming for all your guns' hysteria with a quick reality check The 2nd Amendment (which i strongly believe in) DOES NOT guarantee the right of any US citizen to own ANY weapon they choose. and btw, polls show that rank and file NRA members are in favor of sensible gun laws (ie re-instate the assault weapons ban, no guns for people with history of mental problems and/or violence). NRA leadership ignores that because they are paid whores for the gun manufacturers. __________________ Arguing whether the Democratic or Republican party is better is like debating which steaming pile of shit is slightly less stinky. Last edited by DTK; 01-10-2013 at 08:32 PM..

01-09-2013, 05:55 PM	#102
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	Its funny the NRA said nothing about things have to tighten up. How these maniacs and irresponsible gun owners make us all look bad and things have to tighten up. The president wasnt against guns ,he signed a fucking bill that allowed people to carry in fed parks. But the NRA cant do that because they dont work for gun owners they work for gun companies and if the rules are tightened up. They cant sell as many guns.

01-09-2013, 05:58 PM	#104
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	I dont think James Holmes would of passed a mental health test http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rs-reveal.html