Krip 2 #26 April 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou never have to wait long for the body count to increase. A bad man with a gun used it to take lives. Good men with guns arrived, ending the shooting spree, saving lives. What should you conclude from this? That we should do a far better job of ensuring that only good men get guns. I may be mistaken but I don't think that New york state has liberal gun laws It will be interesting to see how the nutter gained access to the guns he used in his senseless act of madness. During the great depression there were reports of people killing themselves by jumping off of buildings. Now due to the current economic situation people seem to be wanting to kill themselves and take others with them. IMO there's a hole in our mental health care system.Are the sueciide hot lines being shut down?One Jump Wonder Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #27 April 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou never have to wait long for the body count to increase. A bad man with a gun used it to take lives. Good men with guns arrived, ending the shooting spree, saving lives. What should you conclude from this? That we should do a far better job of ensuring that only good men get guns. I may be mistaken but I don't think that New york state has liberal gun laws It will be interesting to see how the nutter gained access to the guns he used in his senseless act of madness. There are laws, and then there are EFFECTIVE laws. What we are missing are effective laws. We have plenty of toothless laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #28 April 4, 2009 Quote That's the 5th mass shooting spree by a nutter in the last month. Clearly the present laws are working well The NRA must be well pleased with itself. Pittsburgh makes SIX in the last month. This is a national disgrace. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #29 April 4, 2009 Quote There are laws, and then there are EFFECTIVE laws. What we are missing are effective laws. We have plenty of toothless laws. And your conclusion means what action should be taken? Perhaps actual prosecutions for violations would be a start? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #30 April 5, 2009 QuoteQuote There are laws, and then there are EFFECTIVE laws. What we are missing are effective laws. We have plenty of toothless laws. And your conclusion means what action should be taken? Perhaps actual prosecutions for violations would be a start? Tell us how rigorous the background check into the mental health of a gun buyer is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #31 April 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote There are laws, and then there are EFFECTIVE laws. What we are missing are effective laws. We have plenty of toothless laws. And your conclusion means what action should be taken? Perhaps actual prosecutions for violations would be a start? Tell us how rigorous the background check into the mental health of a gun buyer is. Only after you tell me how many of the hundreds of thousands of felons that the Brady check stops from buying a gun are actually prosecuted for it. And then I'll ask the question you all ignore - are you willing to give up the privacy granted by HIPPA? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #32 April 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteWhat should you conclude from this? That we should do a far better job of ensuring that only good men get guns. That we should do a far better job of ensuring that only good men have the right to free speech. That we should do a far better job of ensuring that only good men have the right to vote. That we should do a far better job of ensuring that only good men have the right to a trial by their peers. That we should do a far better job of ensuring that only good men have the right to be secure in the person and papersMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #33 April 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote There are laws, and then there are EFFECTIVE laws. What we are missing are effective laws. We have plenty of toothless laws. And your conclusion means what action should be taken? Perhaps actual prosecutions for violations would be a start? Tell us how rigorous the background check into the mental health of a gun buyer is. Only after you tell me how many of the hundreds of thousands of felons that the Brady check stops from buying a gun are actually prosecuted for it. And then I'll ask the question you all ignore - are you willing to give up the privacy granted by HIPPA? Afraid the answer to her question will be embarrassing?If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #34 April 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote There are laws, and then there are EFFECTIVE laws. What we are missing are effective laws. We have plenty of toothless laws. And your conclusion means what action should be taken? Perhaps actual prosecutions for violations would be a start? Tell us how rigorous the background check into the mental health of a gun buyer is. Only after you tell me how many of the hundreds of thousands of felons that the Brady check stops from buying a gun are actually prosecuted for it. And then I'll ask the question you all ignore - are you willing to give up the privacy granted by HIPPA? Afraid the answer to her question will be embarrassing? You're supposed to be doing that with your magical 'minority report' - style precognizance... so get to it. You're supposed to be handling that with your magical 'minority report'-style precognitive sense...so get to it, will ya?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #35 April 5, 2009 Quote Afraid the answer to her question will be embarrassing? I'm not embarrassed for believing in civil rights. Any real American has a problem with prior restraint. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #36 April 5, 2009 QuoteQuote Afraid the answer to her question will be embarrassing? I'm not embarrassed for believing in civil rights. Any real American has a problem with prior restraint. I believe the pertinent expression is: “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.” Oliver Wendell Holmes On the whole I believe a victim's right not to be shot dead by a nutter trumps the nutter's right to privacy in a gun shop. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #37 April 6, 2009 QuoteQuoteA bad man with a gun used it to take lives. Good men with guns arrived, ending the shooting spree, saving lives. What should you conclude from this? That we should do a far better job of ensuring that only good men get guns. What's your proposal? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #38 April 6, 2009 QuoteThere are laws, and then there are EFFECTIVE laws. What we are missing are effective laws. We have plenty of toothless laws. What's your proposal? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #39 April 6, 2009 Quote What's your proposal? You know there is none. Just the same bleating with no substance to offer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #40 April 6, 2009 QuoteQuoteThere are laws, and then there are EFFECTIVE laws. What we are missing are effective laws. We have plenty of toothless laws. What's your proposal? I doubt you'd like my proposal. Quade made a good one in another thread related to this round of mass shootings by nutters. I guess it surprises me that you defend the right of nutters to own guns, when they bring such discredit on gun owners in general.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #41 April 6, 2009 If you never offer a solution then you should not complain about the solution of others. Put up or shut up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #42 April 6, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteThere are laws, and then there are EFFECTIVE laws. What we are missing are effective laws. We have plenty of toothless laws. What's your proposal? I doubt you'd like my proposal. I guess it surprises me that you defend the right of nutters to own guns, when they bring such discredit on gun owners in general. What's your proposal? Whether I like it or not is immaterial. If you have an idea you think will work, put it out here for everyone to review. Do you have the faith in your idea to do that? You like to sit back and snipe at everything gun owners say - do you have the guts to put forth your ideas and stand up and defend it? I don't defend the rights of nuts to own guns. If they've been judged mentally incompetent, I don't want them to have guns. That's the current law, and I agree with that. Nuts bring no discredit upon normal law-abiding gun owners whatsoever. They do not represent gun owners in general. The fact that you equate the two as somehow being connected shows that you have an irrational and unwarranted bias in the matter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #43 April 6, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThere are laws, and then there are EFFECTIVE laws. What we are missing are effective laws. We have plenty of toothless laws. What's your proposal? I doubt you'd like my proposal. I guess it surprises me that you defend the right of nutters to own guns, when they bring such discredit on gun owners in general. What's your proposal? Whether I like it or not is immaterial. If you have an idea you think will work, put it out here for everyone to review. Do you have the faith in your idea to do that? You like to sit back and snipe at everything gun owners say - do you have the guts to put forth your ideas and stand up and defend it? I don't defend the rights of nuts to own guns. If they've been judged mentally incompetent, I don't want them to have guns. That's the current law, and I agree with that. Nuts bring no discredit upon normal law-abiding gun owners whatsoever. They do not represent gun owners in general. The fact that you equate the two as somehow being connected shows that you have an irrational and unwarranted bias in the matter. There have been a number of proposals suggested here over the last few years. You (plural) always dismiss them as infringing on some supposedly absolute right, and then pretend they never were made. A common-sense proposal is to require something stronger than self-certification of sanity when buying a gun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dannydan 0 #44 April 6, 2009 hmmmmmmmmmm.... Well at least so far 37,000 (2008 stats from vehicular AcCiDeNtS) people haven't died yet in a year from misuse of guns! Oh but, i dont have anything NEW to offer so I better stop! I am PRO 2A... Dont get me going with the LAW/lawless, ANTI GUNNERS opinions or the FACTS of our nations atate of affairs.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #45 April 6, 2009 Quote There have been a number of proposals suggested here over the last few years. You (plural) always dismiss them as infringing on some supposedly absolute right, and then pretend they never were made. No actual proposal with specifics has been offered. Each time one was hinted at, I've asked why they no longer believe in the protections given to us by HIPPA, or if they've thought about the consequences of further stigmatizing getting mental health care. Hint: we'll have more sick people, as they'll not risk their rights and their jobs to get depression treated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #46 April 7, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote There are laws, and then there are EFFECTIVE laws. What we are missing are effective laws. We have plenty of toothless laws. What's your proposal? I doubt you'd like my proposal. I guess it surprises me that you defend the right of nutters to own guns, when they bring such discredit on gun owners in general. What's your proposal? Whether I like it or not is immaterial. If you have an idea you think will work, put it out here for everyone to review. Do you have the faith in your idea to do that? You like to sit back and snipe at everything gun owners say - do you have the guts to put forth your ideas and stand up and defend it? I don't defend the rights of nuts to own guns. If they've been judged mentally incompetent, I don't want them to have guns. That's the current law, and I agree with that. Nuts bring no discredit upon normal law-abiding gun owners whatsoever. They do not represent gun owners in general. The fact that you equate the two as somehow being connected shows that you have an irrational and unwarranted bias in the matter. There have been a number of proposals suggested here over the last few years. You (plural) always dismiss them as infringing on some supposedly absolute right, and then pretend they never were made. A common-sense proposal is to require something stronger than self-certification of sanity when buying a gun. Kallend it is OK for you to come out of the closet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #47 April 7, 2009 QuoteQuote There have been a number of proposals suggested here over the last few years. You (plural) always dismiss them as infringing on some supposedly absolute right, and then pretend they never were made. No actual proposal with specifics has been offered. Each time one was hinted at, I've asked why they no longer believe in the protections given to us by HIPPA, or if they've thought about the consequences of further stigmatizing getting mental health care. Hint: we'll have more sick people, as they'll not risk their rights and their jobs to get depression treated. So you're thoroughly in favor of nutters having guns, because denying them will risk them not having their depression treated. Maybe nutters should also be allowed to be airline pilots - we wouldn't want to upset them, would we?If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #48 April 7, 2009 So again, you have nothing of substance to offer, other than to erode more constitutional rights. You're certainly consistent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #49 April 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteWhat's your proposal? A common-sense proposal is to require something stronger than self-certification of sanity when buying a gun. We already have that. If a person has been found to be mentally unstable by a judge, then he can't buy a gun. Most states already put those findings on the gun prohibition database. Do you want people to be denied their constitutional rights based upon something less than a court finding after due process? Like maybe gossip from a neighbor? Or every person who has ever had an appointment with a psychiatrist? What's your criteria for determining that someone is "nuts" and not deserving of gun rights? Lay out your plan for us with specifics. Do you like the way the airline "no fly" list is working to keep suspected terrorists off of airplanes? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #50 April 7, 2009 QuoteSo again, you have nothing of substance to offer, other than to erode more constitutional rights. You're certainly consistent. He and quade are on the same team, along with kallend er "captain slob" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
