2 Cops shot dead by crazy gun nut Obama hater

[Gunny]

I don't care if they adore or loath Obama, or any other politician or celebrity.
Separate crazy fuckers from deadly weapons.

That doesn't say I suggest or condone harassing and confiscating weapons from only Obama hating Conservatives.
THAT fallacy is a perfect example of the RW paranoia - self centerred persecution complex.
Such irrational paranoid behavior is childishly self centered, unattractive, repulsive, no matter who does it.

I am saying that WE as responsible citizens, as thinking, alert human beings,
need to pay attention to reducing the worst case scenarios of what happens when deeply unbalanced, angry people have access to deadly weapons.
Not wait for courts and police to intervene.
Take their guns away, and their swords and their nunchukkas and their poison darts and their military knives.

That is not a political statement. It is self preservation.
I'd rather restrict a violent nut's access to weapons than have to keep my hand on the butt of mine, for fear that he or ANYONE will snap at any second and start shooting.
That is not my view of what the 2nd Amendment was written to protect - a society where everyone is packing heat, everyone's itchy and worried and ready to empty a clip in all directions.
Always at the mercy of the worst mood swing of the craziest among us.

I am proactive, not passively reactive, as Gunny seems to be advocating.
"Nothing we can do until he starts shooting".
To hell with that.
I have and will take a crazy fuckers weapons from dangerous people.
Not because that person would be a RWer who I think is hysterically wrong in his unattached to reality opinions,
but because that person is dangerous.
There is a difference.

And I am saying two cops tried to disarm this guy and look at THEM; yet, you are telling others who don't even have law enforcement training to try the same shit.

I'm not advocating that you are passively reactive. I am advocating that you are reactionary and self-righteous to the point that common sense isn't prevailing.

You are the one unattached to reality. You try and take my gun when I have decided you won't and you just get dead. THAT simple.

You resort to emotional outbursts and keyboard commando threats.
Classy.

Nobody ever said anything about taking YOUR guns away, "Gunny".
Are you concerned that people who know you would consider you to be a "Go Postal" risk ?
Your postings show that your emotions seem to lead the way, and get loose on you.

Do you have uncontrollable temper tantrums, do you worry and fear that "the government" is going to get you, take you guns and 'rights' ?
If so........get to the VA. They have good counselling.

Oh please. If anyone is resorting to anything it's you. You're trying to play games with semantics and you aren't even good at it.

I didn't threaten you. I posed a hypothetical scenario.

I haven't made an appeal to emotion yet. I've tried to appeal to common sense and logic of which you apparently have none.

In fact, YOU are the one who has continually appealed to emotion and continually deflected with personal attacks quite somply because your argument got shot to shit and you can't come up with anything else.

 

[Gunny]

I don't care if they adore or loath Obama, or any other politician or celebrity.
Separate crazy fuckers from deadly weapons.

That doesn't say I suggest or condone harassing and confiscating weapons from only Obama hating Conservatives.
THAT fallacy is a perfect example of the RW paranoia - self centerred persecution complex.
Such irrational paranoid behavior is childishly self centered, unattractive, repulsive, no matter who does it.

I am saying that WE as responsible citizens, as thinking, alert human beings,
need to pay attention to reducing the worst case scenarios of what happens when deeply unbalanced, angry people have access to deadly weapons.
Not wait for courts and police to intervene.
Take their guns away, and their swords and their nunchukkas and their poison darts and their military knives.

That is not a political statement. It is self preservation.
I'd rather restrict a violent nut's access to weapons than have to keep my hand on the butt of mine, for fear that he or ANYONE will snap at any second and start shooting.
That is not my view of what the 2nd Amendment was written to protect - a society where everyone is packing heat, everyone's itchy and worried and ready to empty a clip in all directions.
Always at the mercy of the worst mood swing of the craziest among us.

I am proactive, not passively reactive, as Gunny seems to be advocating.
"Nothing we can do until he starts shooting".
To hell with that.
I have and will take a crazy fuckers weapons from dangerous people.
Not because that person would be a RWer who I think is hysterically wrong in his unattached to reality opinions,
but because that person is dangerous.
There is a difference.

Here's the problem... You don't get to decide whose crazy... and given that CRAZY is so throughly SUBJECTIVE... and often the final anaysis is founded in the ACTION which SOLIDIFIES THE ANALYSIS... your in essense seeking to use 'science' to determine who gets to hold individual rights...

Which is IRONIC AS HELL given the ceaseless advocacy for the RIGHTS OF THOSE WHO PLOTTED AND EXECUTED THE MASS MURDER OF 3000 PEOPLE...

Which disqualifies you and pretty much across the board...

What's more... I've personally disarmed individuals, friends who I knew were goign through a tough patch. Walked right in their house and stolen their guns... put them in my safe... drove to their location and told them exactly what I did... and guess what; in BOTH circumstances (granted each one was slightly different) NEITHER ONE even hesitated... and BOTH thanked me... albeit down the road.

What's more, I've taken my guns to friends and told them to take them to someone else, unknown to me to hold them, when I was not well suited to the responsibility...

And there have been several times, in my life when I've used my side arm and my shotgun to defend myself and my family...

So shut the fuck up... people tend to do what's best and people tend to BE RESPONSIBLE; but that doesn't guarantee perfection and while human rights are imperfect, THEY'RE MADE LESS PERFECT BY PEOPLE WHO ADVOCATE THEIR USURPATION, ON THE PREMISE THAT IT'S AN IMPERFECT SYSTEM... which is only amplified by the certainty that the loudest advocates of such ARE AMONG THE LEAST PERFECT AND ADVOCATES OF THE MOST DISCREDITED IDEOLOGY IN HUMAN HISTORY!

It is BEYOND ABSURD TO READ SOMEONE WHO ADVACTES FOR THE IDEOLOGY WHICH MURDERED 150 MILLION HUMAN BEINGS, PLEADING THAT THE WORLD SHOULD CONCEDE TO THEIR DESIRES< TO SAVE HUMAN LIFE...

Funny stuff...

PUBES - it doesn't take a PhD in psychology to see from your rambling disjointed emotional wild raving posts that you
are crazy.

You fit in here, perfectly.

So do you. A leftwinger that can't debate.

 

[Gunny]

Compared to whom? You?

Lol!

Compared to people who move faster and are more agile than he.
He was decent 25 years ago, won competitions, went into TV and movies. That's fine.
But there were and are many who are far better at sparring, fighting, and are true masters of many styles and weapons and forms, not just one school.
Chuck Norris is not the only American martial arts champion.

*yawn*

Talk's cheap, and words on a screen cheaper.

 

[Gunny]

The title discredited the whole discussion. The guy was mentally disturbed Obama was not the only reason he was paranoid yet the OP felt it necessary to outline that as well as "gun nut".

Exactly. But what do you expect? When his argument fell flat he went into personal attack mode.

I'm shocked ... SHOCKED, I say.

 

[Gunny]

Why do you believe he was mentally disturbed? I'm not so sure he was.

Obviously his documented behavior and pattern of domestic violence says so. A court order to attend anger management.

Hardly considered proper behavior in a civilized society. Then there's shooting two cops who came to arrest him for a crime he committed.

I'd say that meets the standard of "disturbed."

 

[Bfgrn]

Why do you believe he was mentally disturbed? I'm not so sure he was.

Obviously his documented behavior and pattern of domestic violence says so. A court order to attend anger management.

Hardly considered proper behavior in a civilized society. Then there's shooting two cops who came to arrest him for a crime he committed.

I'd say that meets the standard of "disturbed."

Do you think this disturbed person with an anger problem and pending charges of domestic violence should have STILL had a gun permit after being ordered by the court to attend anger management?

Bfgrn: Maybe the man's wife thought it was important enough to tell the officers that responded to the call in her police statement that her husband was "severely disturbed" that Barack Obama had been elected president, and believed the U.S. government was conspiring against him.

Gunny: Maybe it wasn't important at all and came out after the fact. He was pissed over a tube of clearasil. Sorry the facts don't support your wishful thinking.


No Gunny, the facts came out when Cartwright's wife calling the police. She told them about her husband being severely disturbed that Barack Obama had been elected President. It is in the police report the officers filled out before the shootings took place.

Here's the police report...
kiqdag-newoffensereport

 

[del]

Why do you believe he was mentally disturbed? I'm not so sure he was.

Obviously his documented behavior and pattern of domestic violence says so. A court order to attend anger management.

Hardly considered proper behavior in a civilized society. Then there's shooting two cops who came to arrest him for a crime he committed.

I'd say that meets the standard of "disturbed."

Do you think this disturbed person with an anger problem and pending charges of domestic violence should have STILL had a gun permit after being ordered by the court to attend anger management?

Bfgrn: Maybe the man's wife thought it was important enough to tell the officers that responded to the call in her police statement that her husband was "severely disturbed" that Barack Obama had been elected president, and believed the U.S. government was conspiring against him.

Gunny: Maybe it wasn't important at all and came out after the fact. He was pissed over a tube of clearasil. Sorry the facts don't support your wishful thinking.


No Gunny, the facts came out when Cartwright's wife calling the police. She told them about her husband being severely disturbed that Barack Obama had been elected President. It is in the police report the officers filled out before the shootings took place.

Here's the police report...
kiqdag-newoffensereport

wrong again. the police called her, after the deputies had been shot.

his weapons should have been confiscated, by law, when he was arraigned for domestic violence.

try again.

 

[Missourian]

You know - multiple cop shootings are on the rise since these whackos started stocking up on guns. But hey, let's give them assault rifle permits and AK-47's so they can REALLY go out there and cause havoc!

I'm all for the right to bear arms, as in a gun or two around the house for self defensive measures. I also have zero problem with gun collectors. But I am not a fan of people having and using military grade weapons - especially when they outgun police officers.

This is just a HUGE pot of water that is leading up to a boil. The radicals like Sarah Palin and co. got the right wing fired up when they tried to peg Obama as someone who "pals around with terrorists." Crowds would shout "TERRORIST!" at McCain rallies when called upon to describe Obama... and even though Obama has not made one single solitary comment about guns since he was elected, the far right has stocked up on guns like toy trains.

We are due for a severely hot summer with the coming El Nino... if one of these right-wing fuckers gets a clear shot on Obama - you can expect massive riots this summer. Pig flu. Economy. Socialism. May Day protests....All of the ingredients are coming together nicely now for a Summer no one will forget. Wish I could just leave the country from June - September.

You are ignorant of the facts and the LAW. In order to BE PROTECTED by the Second Amendment, a weapon MUST be of a type that is used by or useful to the military. That was a Supreme Court Decision in 1939. Texas Vs White as I recall.

Add in the recent decision that the 2nd is a PERSONAL INDIVIDUAL RIGHT and you do not get to grab weapons cause you do not like how they look.

Fully automatic weapons are illegal in 17 States and the other 33 require a FEDERAL license for every individual fully automatic weapon you own or possess. I believe the fee is 800 dollars a year now and includes a thorough investigation by the Federal and local authorities. You must keep the Government informed of exactly where you maintain said weapon and even if on a one night stay over have to report where you will have said weapon. If you are traveling it is YOUR responsibility to ensure you do not carry said weapon into a State where it is illegal, license doesn't apply in those States.

The only AK-47's you can buy are SEMI AUTOMATIC and no more powerful then a hunting rifle in the 30.06 range. ANd most of them are cheap ass Chinese knock offs and couldn't hit the broad side of Barn door. Had one for a short while the sights were so fucked you couldn't even adjust them to be close to accurate. Sold the damn worthless piece of shit.

OK. Here are your points. They are only semi-automatic. But they have clips that can hold as many as 100 bullets, and fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. Or you can put a spring behind the trigger, and really go to town.

They are not accurate. They don't have to be. These nutters are not shooting people at a hundred or more yards, they are shooting at point blank range, and often, into groups of people, not really caring who they hit.

As a gun owner, the callousness displayed to the ever increasing toll that gun violence is having in our society by the wingnuts, is appalling to me. We either take it seriously, and seek some solutions as to why it seems to be so endemic in our society, or people that do not own guns will take matters out of our hands. This is a simple statement of fact. But you will view it as another attempt to "get the guns". And that is why all of us will find our Second Amendment rights infringed on.

The hysteria greeted by any suggestion concerning guns, or the people that own them, and the current death toll, is already starting to create a backlash among the citizens of this nation. Enjoy it, fellows, you have created it.

There is no "increasing toll".

Murder rates in the U.S. are hovering at 40 year lows.

.........Year --- Homicide rate​

1950 --- 4.6
1951 --- 4.4
1952 --- 4.6
1953 --- 4.5
1954 --- 4.2
1955 --- 4.1
1956 --- 4.1
1957 --- 4.0
1958 --- 4.8
1959 --- 4.9
1960 --- 5.1
1961 --- 4.8
1962 --- 4.6
1963 --- 4.6
1964 --- 4.9
1965 --- 5.1
1966 --- 5.6
1967 --- 6.2
1968 --- 6.9
1969 --- 7.3
1970 --- 7.9
1971 --- 8.6
1972 --- 9.0
1973 --- 9.4
1974 --- 9.8
1975 --- 9.6
1976 --- 8.8
1977 --- 8.8
1978 --- 9.0
1979 --- 9.7
1980 --- 10.2
1981 --- 9.8
1982 --- 9.1
1983 --- 8.3
1984 --- 7.9
1985 --- 7.9
1986 --- 8.6
1987 --- 8.3
1988 --- 8.4
1989 --- 8.7
1990 --- 9.4
1991 --- 9.8
1992 --- 9.3
1993 --- 9.5
1994 --- 9.0
1995 --- 8.2
1996 --- 7.4
1997 --- 6.8
1998 --- 6.3
1999 --- 5.7
2000 --- 5.5
2001 --- 5.6
2002 --- 5.6
2003 --- 5.7
2004 --- 5.5
2005 --- 5.9
2006 --- 6.1
2007 --- 5.9​

Source: Crime in the United States, 2008, FBI, Uniform Crime Reports.

Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 1950&ndash;2007 &mdash; Infoplease.com

 

[Missourian]

The question is what made him unstable in your mind?

A) He was severely disturbed that President Obama was elected.

B) He believed the governement was "out to get" his guns.

C) He had a history of domestic violence.

If the answer is C...that is an issue for the court and the spouse.

In Missouri, even a charge of domestic violence will get your firearms confiscated.

If the answer is A, B or A and B, you have 50 million homes to visit...so you better get crackin'.

 

[jillian]

The guy must've had really bad acne.

Just imagine what would have happened had he the heartbreak of psoriasis.

he'd have been heartbroken.

 

[xsited1]

The guy must've had really bad acne.

Just imagine what would have happened had he the heartbreak of psoriasis.

he'd have been heartbroken.

I have never heard of the 'heartbreak of psoriasis'!

From Wiki: The phrase "the heartbreak of psoriasis" is often used both seriously and ironically to describe the emotional impact of the disease. It may include both the effect of having a chronic uncomfortable disorder and the social effects of being self conscious of one's appearance.

You guys are funny! (He he he)

 

[editec]

The question is what made him unstable in your mind?

A) He was severely disturbed that President Obama was elected.

B) He believed the governement was "out to get" his guns.

C) He had a history of domestic violence.

If the answer is C...that is an issue for the court and the spouse.

In Missouri, even a charge of domestic violence will get your firearms confiscated.

If the answer is A, B or A and B, you have 50 million homes to visit...so you better get crackin'.

When people become violently unstable, the reasons they give for becoming violent are their own rationalizations to explain this unreasonable anger to themselves.

Trust me, when it comes to irrational anger, I know of what I speak.

 

[Missourian]

The question is what made him unstable in your mind?

A) He was severely disturbed that President Obama was elected.

B) He believed the government was "out to get" his guns.

C) He had a history of domestic violence.

If the answer is C...that is an issue for the court and the spouse.

In Missouri, even a charge of domestic violence will get your firearms confiscated.

If the answer is A, B or A and B, you have 50 million homes to visit...so you better get crackin'.

When people become violently unstable, the reasons they give for becoming violent are their own rationalizations to explain this unreasonable anger to themselves.

Trust me, when it comes to irrational anger, I know of what I speak.

I agree Ed.

Once an individual has proven they cannot control their anger through violent action (i.e. domestic battery, assault, etc.) the court should restrict those individuals access to firearms.

If a person is capable of assaulting another person with their hands in a fit of violent anger, it isn't a stretch to perceive them capable of doing the same with a firearm.

The rest of the article and opinion of the OP is superfluous.

If the spouse had an Injunction Against Domestic Violence, the Court failed to enforce Federal and Florida State Law.

Federal Law:

o 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8): It is unlawful for a person who has a Protection Order (Florida&#8217;s Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence meets federal definition of "Protection Order") in effect against him/her to possess a firearm and/or ammunition, ship or transport same in interstate commerce, receive any which have been so shipped or transported, or have seized firearms returned. The respondent must be an "intimate partner" and must have had due process (proper notice of hearing and opportunity to be heard).


Florida Law:
o §790.233(1), Florida Statutes, prohibits a person subject to a current Permanent Injunction Against Domestic Violence under §741.30 from possessing firearms or ammunition.

​

The mechanisms to remove the firearms from this individual were available, but were not implemented by the court, the spouse or law enforcement.

 

[Bfgrn]

Obviously his documented behavior and pattern of domestic violence says so. A court order to attend anger management.

Hardly considered proper behavior in a civilized society. Then there's shooting two cops who came to arrest him for a crime he committed.

I'd say that meets the standard of "disturbed."

Do you think this disturbed person with an anger problem and pending charges of domestic violence should have STILL had a gun permit after being ordered by the court to attend anger management?

Bfgrn: Maybe the man's wife thought it was important enough to tell the officers that responded to the call in her police statement that her husband was "severely disturbed" that Barack Obama had been elected president, and believed the U.S. government was conspiring against him.

Gunny: Maybe it wasn't important at all and came out after the fact. He was pissed over a tube of clearasil. Sorry the facts don't support your wishful thinking.


No Gunny, the facts came out when Cartwright's wife calling the police. She told them about her husband being severely disturbed that Barack Obama had been elected President. It is in the police report the officers filled out before the shootings took place.

Here's the police report...
kiqdag-newoffensereport

wrong again. the police called her, after the deputies had been shot.

his weapons should have been confiscated, by law, when he was arraigned for domestic violence.

try again.

OK...

Elizabeth drove herself to the emergency room at Fort Walton Beach Medical Center and called 911. Then deputies began looking for Cartwright to make an arrest.

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/cartwright_16963___article.html/elizabeth_deputies.html