Take the guns first, due process second.

[Papageorgio]

Did I say they lied? I am saying no one knows and the family might have an agenda. I have no clue and neither do you. You are taking the word of a family you have never met and might have an agenda.

What is wrong with not accepting info at face value and researching and making sure?

i didn't ever read anything to the contrary so taking the word of a family makes sence & why would they do that knowing what assholes would denigrate him or them? to try to change minds because of their own views? doubtful. why are you more inclined to question their motives than to think the odds are they are telling the truth?

That is cool for you. Why must I take their word for it? I don't know them or their motives for making their statement. It seems there is a motive otherwise they would have stayed quiet about it.

never said you had to accept it. is that cool for you?

'It seems there is a motive otherwise they would have stayed quiet about it.'

but of COURSE.... it's all a nefarious plot to gun grab.... ya that must be the ticket.

maybe they spoke out because they thought he would have but couldn't.

Well they did use the word feel, which is what they could believe he thought, however since he never commented publicly we really don't know, do we?

it depends. i know how my father would FEEL about trump in office & what he's doing to our relationships with NATO allies & cuddling up to dictators; since he served in the phillipines after being drafted into the army air corp in WW2.

I'm happy for you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's not an argument against red flag laws - its merely pointing out that we find it perfectly okay to cause manic/violent behavior because the side effect is RARE.

And manic/violent behavior causes mass shootings...but mass shootings are even more rare than the side effects we're fine with gambling on.

Its evident... that in some cases we are okay with risking violence. And that deserves to be a part of the discussion ~ meaning, are we placing restrictions on free citizens using arbitrary/inconsistent reasoning, basing it on something thats really quite rare, using the emotions that seeing these things on TV brings us...or are we being rational and consistent.

Of the 10, 000 yearly deaths, the majority are not due to the mentally ill mass shooters, either. Theyre due to punk kids, and red flag laws dont resolve the largest issue regarding gun deaths...only seeks to mitigate the more irrational/emotional one.

Which it won't do because if one wants to kill allot of people, or even just try they have many options to do just that. They can do like the Boston bombers did and use fireworks and pressure cookers, they can take over an aircraft, they can grab the keys and go for a drive, they can grab a knife from the kitchen, and axe from the shed or a spork from Taco Bell.

Duh. So what is your solution?

Consider this:

Common sense gun regulations may not prevent a monster from getting a gun, but no regulations assure a monster will get a gun and kill innocent people.

As for driving a car, using pressure cookers, taking over an aircraft or any other means to take a human life, guns seem to be the tool of choice.

Let Me correct this for you.

Common sense gun regulations WILL NOT prevent a monster from getting a gun. FULL STOP

Gun regulations serve to harm ONLY the innocent.

Oh bullshit. The only innocents are those shot, killed or maimed and the families and friends of those victims attacked by the monsters. MONSTERS YOU enable and that makes you culpable.

Pure emotion. Pointless.

More bullshit. You're a callous jerk, who seems to lack empathy - that is a serious character flaw if not a sign of someone with a personality disorder.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is no evidence that the Trump administration supports firearms confiscation. That's a left wing idea.

There’s no evidence ‘the left’ supports firearms ‘confiscation.’ That’s a rightwing lie.

 

[Crixus]

Which it won't do because if one wants to kill allot of people, or even just try they have many options to do just that. They can do like the Boston bombers did and use fireworks and pressure cookers, they can take over an aircraft, they can grab the keys and go for a drive, they can grab a knife from the kitchen, and axe from the shed or a spork from Taco Bell.

Duh. So what is your solution?

Consider this:

Common sense gun regulations may not prevent a monster from getting a gun, but no regulations assure a monster will get a gun and kill innocent people.

As for driving a car, using pressure cookers, taking over an aircraft or any other means to take a human life, guns seem to be the tool of choice.

Let Me correct this for you.

Common sense gun regulations WILL NOT prevent a monster from getting a gun. FULL STOP

Gun regulations serve to harm ONLY the innocent.

Oh bullshit. The only innocents are those shot, killed or maimed and the families and friends of those victims attacked by the monsters. MONSTERS YOU enable and that makes you culpable.

Pure emotion. Pointless.

More bullshit. You're a callous jerk, who seems to lack empathy - that is a serious character flaw if not a sign of someone with a personality disorder.

Which it won't do because if one wants to kill allot of people, or even just try they have many options to do just that. They can do like the Boston bombers did and use fireworks and pressure cookers, they can take over an aircraft, they can grab the keys and go for a drive, they can grab a knife from the kitchen, and axe from the shed or a spork from Taco Bell.

Duh. So what is your solution?

Consider this:

Common sense gun regulations may not prevent a monster from getting a gun, but no regulations assure a monster will get a gun and kill innocent people.

As for driving a car, using pressure cookers, taking over an aircraft or any other means to take a human life, guns seem to be the tool of choice.

Let Me correct this for you.

Common sense gun regulations WILL NOT prevent a monster from getting a gun. FULL STOP

Gun regulations serve to harm ONLY the innocent.

Oh bullshit. The only innocents are those shot, killed or maimed and the families and friends of those victims attacked by the monsters. MONSTERS YOU enable and that makes you culpable.

Pure emotion. Pointless.

More bullshit. You're a callous jerk, who seems to lack empathy - that is a serious character flaw if not a sign of someone with a personality disorder.

Not at all. Awhile back I had my own experience with a mass shooting. Lots of emotion there. Matter of fact, where I work has become more like a prison because of it. The whole community knew the shooter. Shot 3D matches with the family of the boy who did the shooting. And with the El Paso thing at Walmart the wife won't go there with the kids. You are probably right, I may be slightly bent, but I do not lack empathy. empathey has zero to do with it. Taking guns from a guy In Iowa would not have stopped the El Paso guy. He would have found another way.

 

[Crixus]

There is no evidence that the Trump administration supports firearms confiscation. That's a left wing idea.

There’s no evidence ‘the left’ supports firearms ‘confiscation.’ That’s a rightwing lie.

It's looking like the right wing supports gun confiscation. Like I said, I can't remember a democrat president proposing what trump and pence did in the video.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I didn't realize you were one of those people who says the information must be a lie if you don't like it. He didn't own one. His FAMILY said so. Call them liars again; maybe they'll sue you. They should.

Did I say they lied? I am saying no one knows and the family might have an agenda. I have no clue and neither do you. You are taking the word of a family you have never met and might have an agenda.

What is wrong with not accepting info at face value and researching and making sure?

"How do you know for sure he did not own one?"
"Oh, his family said so, you know the ones trying to control the narrative..."
"Find the quote where Stoner ever denied owning one."

Don't treat me like I'm stupid or something.

Look, his family is they only ones to say if he owned one or not. His family "feels" that he only intended for the military to have them.

I don't think your stupid, never said that, sorry if you got that impression. I am unsure why I can't be skeptical on what the motives of the family are. Maybe you should get a hold of them so you can have them sue like you want them to.

I'm done giving you a hard time. Don't think you convinced me or anything, though.

Think of it like this. You hear a knock at the door and then,

Ma'am, how you doing I'm officer dude, and this is officer guy. Is it okay if we come in ? Thank you. Mrs. Lady, we received a complaint that you made a disturbing post on a website called USMB. Here it is right here, do you recognize it at all? You do? Okay so we need to take a look at your browser history real fast, ma'am do you own any firearms? No? Well, for the sake of public safety we need to go head and have a look. What ? We can't do that? Well Mrs. Lady, due to the nature of your post by law and executive order of president Trump we can. We will also need your car keys and we will need to remove all objects from your house that we deem dangerous. Don't worry Mrs. Lady, this is all easy to work out. Just show up to court on this day and you will be able to tell your side of the story and work it all out. In the mean time, no driving as your DL has been suspended until this is cleared up.

Mean while, if your lucky you will get a court date in the near future, and hopefully you got the cash to cover the impound fee as well as court fees. Do you work? Because if news of the visit gets back to your employer that the cops had to come to your house for the stated reason you may get fired.

Nice fantasy, but not gonna happen. Due process and Amendments 4, 5 and 6 ring a bell?

 

[Crixus]

Did I say they lied? I am saying no one knows and the family might have an agenda. I have no clue and neither do you. You are taking the word of a family you have never met and might have an agenda.

What is wrong with not accepting info at face value and researching and making sure?

"How do you know for sure he did not own one?"
"Oh, his family said so, you know the ones trying to control the narrative..."
"Find the quote where Stoner ever denied owning one."

Don't treat me like I'm stupid or something.

Look, his family is they only ones to say if he owned one or not. His family "feels" that he only intended for the military to have them.

I don't think your stupid, never said that, sorry if you got that impression. I am unsure why I can't be skeptical on what the motives of the family are. Maybe you should get a hold of them so you can have them sue like you want them to.

I'm done giving you a hard time. Don't think you convinced me or anything, though.

Think of it like this. You hear a knock at the door and then,

Ma'am, how you doing I'm officer dude, and this is officer guy. Is it okay if we come in ? Thank you. Mrs. Lady, we received a complaint that you made a disturbing post on a website called USMB. Here it is right here, do you recognize it at all? You do? Okay so we need to take a look at your browser history real fast, ma'am do you own any firearms? No? Well, for the sake of public safety we need to go head and have a look. What ? We can't do that? Well Mrs. Lady, due to the nature of your post by law and executive order of president Trump we can. We will also need your car keys and we will need to remove all objects from your house that we deem dangerous. Don't worry Mrs. Lady, this is all easy to work out. Just show up to court on this day and you will be able to tell your side of the story and work it all out. In the mean time, no driving as your DL has been suspended until this is cleared up.

Mean while, if your lucky you will get a court date in the near future, and hopefully you got the cash to cover the impound fee as well as court fees. Do you work? Because if news of the visit gets back to your employer that the cops had to come to your house for the stated reason you may get fired.

Nice fantasy, but not gonna happen. Due process and Amendments 4, 5 and 6 ring a bell?

Already been over all that. In the end you got a president and Vice President saying take them first, due process second. Pence says take anything dangerous.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"How do you know for sure he did not own one?"
"Oh, his family said so, you know the ones trying to control the narrative..."
"Find the quote where Stoner ever denied owning one."

Don't treat me like I'm stupid or something.

Look, his family is they only ones to say if he owned one or not. His family "feels" that he only intended for the military to have them.

I don't think your stupid, never said that, sorry if you got that impression. I am unsure why I can't be skeptical on what the motives of the family are. Maybe you should get a hold of them so you can have them sue like you want them to.

I'm done giving you a hard time. Don't think you convinced me or anything, though.

Think of it like this. You hear a knock at the door and then,

Ma'am, how you doing I'm officer dude, and this is officer guy. Is it okay if we come in ? Thank you. Mrs. Lady, we received a complaint that you made a disturbing post on a website called USMB. Here it is right here, do you recognize it at all? You do? Okay so we need to take a look at your browser history real fast, ma'am do you own any firearms? No? Well, for the sake of public safety we need to go head and have a look. What ? We can't do that? Well Mrs. Lady, due to the nature of your post by law and executive order of president Trump we can. We will also need your car keys and we will need to remove all objects from your house that we deem dangerous. Don't worry Mrs. Lady, this is all easy to work out. Just show up to court on this day and you will be able to tell your side of the story and work it all out. In the mean time, no driving as your DL has been suspended until this is cleared up.

Mean while, if your lucky you will get a court date in the near future, and hopefully you got the cash to cover the impound fee as well as court fees. Do you work? Because if news of the visit gets back to your employer that the cops had to come to your house for the stated reason you may get fired.

Nice fantasy, but not gonna happen. Due process and Amendments 4, 5 and 6 ring a bell?

Already been over all that. In the end you got a president and Vice President saying take them first, due process second. Pence says take anything dangerous.

Both liberals and conservatives will not support Trump and his lap dog's comments. If Trump were to employ this illegal act he would be impeached by a bi partisan vote in the H. or Rep., and convicted in the Senate by a super-majority.

Even before that, however, the Supreme Court (probably 9-0) would in a single paragraph reject such an executive order.

 

[Darkwind]

Still waiting for you to explain how one in two million people having an adverse reaction to a psychotropic drug somehow becomes an argument against a Red Flag law.

It's not an argument against red flag laws - its merely pointing out that we find it perfectly okay to cause manic/violent behavior because the side effect is RARE.

And manic/violent behavior causes mass shootings...but mass shootings are even more rare than the side effects we're fine with gambling on.

Its evident... that in some cases we are okay with risking violence. And that deserves to be a part of the discussion ~ meaning, are we placing restrictions on free citizens using arbitrary/inconsistent reasoning, basing it on something thats really quite rare, using the emotions that seeing these things on TV brings us...or are we being rational and consistent.

Of the 10, 000 yearly deaths, the majority are not due to the mentally ill mass shooters, either. Theyre due to punk kids, and red flag laws dont resolve the largest issue regarding gun deaths...only seeks to mitigate the more irrational/emotional one.

Which it won't do because if one wants to kill allot of people, or even just try they have many options to do just that. They can do like the Boston bombers did and use fireworks and pressure cookers, they can take over an aircraft, they can grab the keys and go for a drive, they can grab a knife from the kitchen, and axe from the shed or a spork from Taco Bell.

Duh. So what is your solution?

Consider this:

Common sense gun regulations may not prevent a monster from getting a gun, but no regulations assure a monster will get a gun and kill innocent people.

As for driving a car, using pressure cookers, taking over an aircraft or any other means to take a human life, guns seem to be the tool of choice.

Let Me correct this for you.

Common sense gun regulations WILL NOT prevent a monster from getting a gun. FULL STOP

Gun regulations serve to harm ONLY the innocent.

Oh bullshit. The only innocents are those shot, killed or maimed and the families and friends of those victims attacked by the monsters. MONSTERS YOU enable and that makes you culpable.

You are the one spouting bullshit. It is a fact, that gun regulations regulate ONLY those who would obey that law to begin.

Sorry, I triggered you, but the truth doesn't care about your feelings.

 

[G.T.]

The Ohio shooter was on coke, alcohol and ANTI anxiety medication.

Never mix uppers and downers

 

[Crixus]

It's not an argument against red flag laws - its merely pointing out that we find it perfectly okay to cause manic/violent behavior because the side effect is RARE.

And manic/violent behavior causes mass shootings...but mass shootings are even more rare than the side effects we're fine with gambling on.

Its evident... that in some cases we are okay with risking violence. And that deserves to be a part of the discussion ~ meaning, are we placing restrictions on free citizens using arbitrary/inconsistent reasoning, basing it on something thats really quite rare, using the emotions that seeing these things on TV brings us...or are we being rational and consistent.

Of the 10, 000 yearly deaths, the majority are not due to the mentally ill mass shooters, either. Theyre due to punk kids, and red flag laws dont resolve the largest issue regarding gun deaths...only seeks to mitigate the more irrational/emotional one.

Which it won't do because if one wants to kill allot of people, or even just try they have many options to do just that. They can do like the Boston bombers did and use fireworks and pressure cookers, they can take over an aircraft, they can grab the keys and go for a drive, they can grab a knife from the kitchen, and axe from the shed or a spork from Taco Bell.

Duh. So what is your solution?

Consider this:

Common sense gun regulations may not prevent a monster from getting a gun, but no regulations assure a monster will get a gun and kill innocent people.

As for driving a car, using pressure cookers, taking over an aircraft or any other means to take a human life, guns seem to be the tool of choice.

Let Me correct this for you.

Common sense gun regulations WILL NOT prevent a monster from getting a gun. FULL STOP

Gun regulations serve to harm ONLY the innocent.

Oh bullshit. The only innocents are those shot, killed or maimed and the families and friends of those victims attacked by the monsters. MONSTERS YOU enable and that makes you culpable.

You are the one spouting bullshit. It is a fact, that gun regulations regulate ONLY those who would obey that law to begin.

Sorry, I triggered you, but the truth doesn't care about your feelings.

It's like old people always say, locks are meant to keep honest people out. I would say to look at that dude who had that stand off with the cops in PA. He was a felon, a pretty bad felon to, yet he managed to acquire an arsenal adequate enough to hold off the police and send six to the hospital. So I can agree, they need to be able to get that guys guns. Hell we all agree on that I'm thinking, but trumps red flag laws would have done nothing to prevent that.

 

[OldLady]

I didn't realize you were one of those people who says the information must be a lie if you don't like it. He didn't own one. His FAMILY said so. Call them liars again; maybe they'll sue you. They should.

Did I say they lied? I am saying no one knows and the family might have an agenda. I have no clue and neither do you. You are taking the word of a family you have never met and might have an agenda.

What is wrong with not accepting info at face value and researching and making sure?

"How do you know for sure he did not own one?"
"Oh, his family said so, you know the ones trying to control the narrative..."
"Find the quote where Stoner ever denied owning one."

Don't treat me like I'm stupid or something.

Look, his family is they only ones to say if he owned one or not. His family "feels" that he only intended for the military to have them.

I don't think your stupid, never said that, sorry if you got that impression. I am unsure why I can't be skeptical on what the motives of the family are. Maybe you should get a hold of them so you can have them sue like you want them to.

I'm done giving you a hard time. Don't think you convinced me or anything, though.

Think of it like this. You hear a knock at the door and then,

Ma'am, how you doing I'm officer dude, and this is officer guy. Is it okay if we come in ? Thank you. Mrs. Lady, we received a complaint that you made a disturbing post on a website called USMB. Here it is right here, do you recognize it at all? You do? Okay so we need to take a look at your browser history real fast, ma'am do you own any firearms? No? Well, for the sake of public safety we need to go head and have a look. What ? We can't do that? Well Mrs. Lady, due to the nature of your post by law and executive order of president Trump we can. We will also need your car keys and we will need to remove all objects from your house that we deem dangerous. Don't worry Mrs. Lady, this is all easy to work out. Just show up to court on this day and you will be able to tell your side of the story and work it all out. In the mean time, no driving as your DL has been suspended until this is cleared up.

Mean while, if your lucky you will get a court date in the near future, and hopefully you got the cash to cover the impound fee as well as court fees. Do you work? Because if news of the visit gets back to your employer that the cops had to come to your house for the stated reason you may get fired.

I didn't realize you were one of those people who says the information must be a lie if you don't like it. He didn't own one. His FAMILY said so. Call them liars again; maybe they'll sue you. They should.

Did I say they lied? I am saying no one knows and the family might have an agenda. I have no clue and neither do you. You are taking the word of a family you have never met and might have an agenda.

What is wrong with not accepting info at face value and researching and making sure?

"How do you know for sure he did not own one?"
"Oh, his family said so, you know the ones trying to control the narrative..."
"Find the quote where Stoner ever denied owning one."

Don't treat me like I'm stupid or something.

Look, his family is they only ones to say if he owned one or not. His family "feels" that he only intended for the military to have them.

I don't think your stupid, never said that, sorry if you got that impression. I am unsure why I can't be skeptical on what the motives of the family are. Maybe you should get a hold of them so you can have them sue like you want them to.

I'm done giving you a hard time. Don't think you convinced me or anything, though.

Think of it like this. You hear a knock at the door and then,

Ma'am, how you doing I'm officer dude, and this is officer guy. Is it okay if we come in ? Thank you. Mrs. Lady, we received a complaint that you made a disturbing post on a website called USMB. Here it is right here, do you recognize it at all? You do? Okay so we need to take a look at your browser history real fast, ma'am do you own any firearms? No? Well, for the sake of public safety we need to go head and have a look. What ? We can't do that? Well Mrs. Lady, due to the nature of your post by law and executive order of president Trump we can. We will also need your car keys and we will need to remove all objects from your house that we deem dangerous. Don't worry Mrs. Lady, this is all easy to work out. Just show up to court on this day and you will be able to tell your side of the story and work it all out. In the mean time, no driving as your DL has been suspended until this is cleared up.

Mean while, if your lucky you will get a court date in the near future, and hopefully you got the cash to cover the impound fee as well as court fees. Do you work? Because if news of the visit gets back to your employer that the cops had to come to your house for the stated reason you may get fired.

Pure fiction. This is serious. Wise up.

 

[Crixus]

Did I say they lied? I am saying no one knows and the family might have an agenda. I have no clue and neither do you. You are taking the word of a family you have never met and might have an agenda.

What is wrong with not accepting info at face value and researching and making sure?

"How do you know for sure he did not own one?"
"Oh, his family said so, you know the ones trying to control the narrative..."
"Find the quote where Stoner ever denied owning one."

Don't treat me like I'm stupid or something.

Look, his family is they only ones to say if he owned one or not. His family "feels" that he only intended for the military to have them.

I don't think your stupid, never said that, sorry if you got that impression. I am unsure why I can't be skeptical on what the motives of the family are. Maybe you should get a hold of them so you can have them sue like you want them to.

I'm done giving you a hard time. Don't think you convinced me or anything, though.

Think of it like this. You hear a knock at the door and then,

Ma'am, how you doing I'm officer dude, and this is officer guy. Is it okay if we come in ? Thank you. Mrs. Lady, we received a complaint that you made a disturbing post on a website called USMB. Here it is right here, do you recognize it at all? You do? Okay so we need to take a look at your browser history real fast, ma'am do you own any firearms? No? Well, for the sake of public safety we need to go head and have a look. What ? We can't do that? Well Mrs. Lady, due to the nature of your post by law and executive order of president Trump we can. We will also need your car keys and we will need to remove all objects from your house that we deem dangerous. Don't worry Mrs. Lady, this is all easy to work out. Just show up to court on this day and you will be able to tell your side of the story and work it all out. In the mean time, no driving as your DL has been suspended until this is cleared up.

Mean while, if your lucky you will get a court date in the near future, and hopefully you got the cash to cover the impound fee as well as court fees. Do you work? Because if news of the visit gets back to your employer that the cops had to come to your house for the stated reason you may get fired.

Did I say they lied? I am saying no one knows and the family might have an agenda. I have no clue and neither do you. You are taking the word of a family you have never met and might have an agenda.

What is wrong with not accepting info at face value and researching and making sure?

"How do you know for sure he did not own one?"
"Oh, his family said so, you know the ones trying to control the narrative..."
"Find the quote where Stoner ever denied owning one."

Don't treat me like I'm stupid or something.

Look, his family is they only ones to say if he owned one or not. His family "feels" that he only intended for the military to have them.

I don't think your stupid, never said that, sorry if you got that impression. I am unsure why I can't be skeptical on what the motives of the family are. Maybe you should get a hold of them so you can have them sue like you want them to.

I'm done giving you a hard time. Don't think you convinced me or anything, though.

Think of it like this. You hear a knock at the door and then,

Ma'am, how you doing I'm officer dude, and this is officer guy. Is it okay if we come in ? Thank you. Mrs. Lady, we received a complaint that you made a disturbing post on a website called USMB. Here it is right here, do you recognize it at all? You do? Okay so we need to take a look at your browser history real fast, ma'am do you own any firearms? No? Well, for the sake of public safety we need to go head and have a look. What ? We can't do that? Well Mrs. Lady, due to the nature of your post by law and executive order of president Trump we can. We will also need your car keys and we will need to remove all objects from your house that we deem dangerous. Don't worry Mrs. Lady, this is all easy to work out. Just show up to court on this day and you will be able to tell your side of the story and work it all out. In the mean time, no driving as your DL has been suspended until this is cleared up.

Mean while, if your lucky you will get a court date in the near future, and hopefully you got the cash to cover the impound fee as well as court fees. Do you work? Because if news of the visit gets back to your employer that the cops had to come to your house for the stated reason you may get fired.

Pure fiction. This is serious. Wise up.

How is it fiction? What part of my "what if" is implausible?

 

[OldLady]

"How do you know for sure he did not own one?"
"Oh, his family said so, you know the ones trying to control the narrative..."
"Find the quote where Stoner ever denied owning one."

Don't treat me like I'm stupid or something.

Look, his family is they only ones to say if he owned one or not. His family "feels" that he only intended for the military to have them.

I don't think your stupid, never said that, sorry if you got that impression. I am unsure why I can't be skeptical on what the motives of the family are. Maybe you should get a hold of them so you can have them sue like you want them to.

I'm done giving you a hard time. Don't think you convinced me or anything, though.

Think of it like this. You hear a knock at the door and then,

Ma'am, how you doing I'm officer dude, and this is officer guy. Is it okay if we come in ? Thank you. Mrs. Lady, we received a complaint that you made a disturbing post on a website called USMB. Here it is right here, do you recognize it at all? You do? Okay so we need to take a look at your browser history real fast, ma'am do you own any firearms? No? Well, for the sake of public safety we need to go head and have a look. What ? We can't do that? Well Mrs. Lady, due to the nature of your post by law and executive order of president Trump we can. We will also need your car keys and we will need to remove all objects from your house that we deem dangerous. Don't worry Mrs. Lady, this is all easy to work out. Just show up to court on this day and you will be able to tell your side of the story and work it all out. In the mean time, no driving as your DL has been suspended until this is cleared up.

Mean while, if your lucky you will get a court date in the near future, and hopefully you got the cash to cover the impound fee as well as court fees. Do you work? Because if news of the visit gets back to your employer that the cops had to come to your house for the stated reason you may get fired.

"How do you know for sure he did not own one?"
"Oh, his family said so, you know the ones trying to control the narrative..."
"Find the quote where Stoner ever denied owning one."

Don't treat me like I'm stupid or something.

Look, his family is they only ones to say if he owned one or not. His family "feels" that he only intended for the military to have them.

I don't think your stupid, never said that, sorry if you got that impression. I am unsure why I can't be skeptical on what the motives of the family are. Maybe you should get a hold of them so you can have them sue like you want them to.

I'm done giving you a hard time. Don't think you convinced me or anything, though.

Think of it like this. You hear a knock at the door and then,

Ma'am, how you doing I'm officer dude, and this is officer guy. Is it okay if we come in ? Thank you. Mrs. Lady, we received a complaint that you made a disturbing post on a website called USMB. Here it is right here, do you recognize it at all? You do? Okay so we need to take a look at your browser history real fast, ma'am do you own any firearms? No? Well, for the sake of public safety we need to go head and have a look. What ? We can't do that? Well Mrs. Lady, due to the nature of your post by law and executive order of president Trump we can. We will also need your car keys and we will need to remove all objects from your house that we deem dangerous. Don't worry Mrs. Lady, this is all easy to work out. Just show up to court on this day and you will be able to tell your side of the story and work it all out. In the mean time, no driving as your DL has been suspended until this is cleared up.

Mean while, if your lucky you will get a court date in the near future, and hopefully you got the cash to cover the impound fee as well as court fees. Do you work? Because if news of the visit gets back to your employer that the cops had to come to your house for the stated reason you may get fired.

Pure fiction. This is serious. Wise up.

How is it fiction? What part of my "what if" is implausible?

These in summary are what a judge considers before signing an ERPO order.
Extreme risk laws allow a family member, law enforcement, or other key individuals as allowed by each state to present evidence to a civil court judge that an individual is a risk to themselves or others. The facts that are typically considered by a judge include:

• Patterns or recent threats and acts of violence
• Dangerous past behavior with guns
• Substance abuse
• Recent firearms or ammunition acquisition

What are Extreme Risk Laws? | Brady

 

[OldLady]

The Ohio shooter was on coke, alcohol and ANTI anxiety medication.

Never mix uppers and downers

Higher'n a kite.

Well, that explains a lot.

 

[G.T.]

The Ohio shooter was on coke, alcohol and ANTI anxiety medication.

Never mix uppers and downers

Higher'n a kite.

Well, that explains a lot.

I guess it's how he psyched himself up enough to go forward with it - it was def. pre-meditated though...with the armor and mask and all. What a sack-less douchebag.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's not an argument against red flag laws - its merely pointing out that we find it perfectly okay to cause manic/violent behavior because the side effect is RARE.

And manic/violent behavior causes mass shootings...but mass shootings are even more rare than the side effects we're fine with gambling on.

Its evident... that in some cases we are okay with risking violence. And that deserves to be a part of the discussion ~ meaning, are we placing restrictions on free citizens using arbitrary/inconsistent reasoning, basing it on something thats really quite rare, using the emotions that seeing these things on TV brings us...or are we being rational and consistent.

Of the 10, 000 yearly deaths, the majority are not due to the mentally ill mass shooters, either. Theyre due to punk kids, and red flag laws dont resolve the largest issue regarding gun deaths...only seeks to mitigate the more irrational/emotional one.

Which it won't do because if one wants to kill allot of people, or even just try they have many options to do just that. They can do like the Boston bombers did and use fireworks and pressure cookers, they can take over an aircraft, they can grab the keys and go for a drive, they can grab a knife from the kitchen, and axe from the shed or a spork from Taco Bell.

Duh. So what is your solution?

Consider this:

Common sense gun regulations may not prevent a monster from getting a gun, but no regulations assure a monster will get a gun and kill innocent people.

As for driving a car, using pressure cookers, taking over an aircraft or any other means to take a human life, guns seem to be the tool of choice.

Let Me correct this for you.

Common sense gun regulations WILL NOT prevent a monster from getting a gun. FULL STOP

Gun regulations serve to harm ONLY the innocent.

Oh bullshit. The only innocents are those shot, killed or maimed and the families and friends of those victims attacked by the monsters. MONSTERS YOU enable and that makes you culpable.

You are the one spouting bullshit. It is a fact, that gun regulations regulate ONLY those who would obey that law to begin.

Sorry, I triggered you, but the truth doesn't care about your feelings.

My feelings aren't hurt, I'm convinced my beliefs are sound, logical, valid and ethical.

Your comment [" You are the one spouting bullshit. It is a fact, that gun regulations regulate ONLY those who would obey that law to begin"] is self evident.

The Bill Passed by the H. of Rep. that Moscow Mitch has not brought to the floor requires a background check which anyone who is honest, sane, sober and law abiding should not fear and ought to support.

Other arguments presented by those opposed to gun regulations may be an inconvenience - licensing and registration for example - are common sense regulations no different than car ownership or operation.

 

[jillian]

So this is what Trump said. Mike Pence says take ANYTHING that is dangerous. I gotta ask how this squares with Trumps claim to love the 2nd amendment and his promise to protect it, yet here he is trying to remove it, as well as the 4th amendment.



So I ask you die hard trumpkins, y'all good with this?

Yeah, like I am going out and vote for a millionaire socialist like Bernie who wants to give everything free except his books? Dont you see the hypocrisy? Nope, not with liberal thinking.

View attachment 274312

So says a trumpkin imbecile

 

[Rustic]

Which it won't do because if one wants to kill allot of people, or even just try they have many options to do just that. They can do like the Boston bombers did and use fireworks and pressure cookers, they can take over an aircraft, they can grab the keys and go for a drive, they can grab a knife from the kitchen, and axe from the shed or a spork from Taco Bell.

Duh. So what is your solution?

Consider this:

Common sense gun regulations may not prevent a monster from getting a gun, but no regulations assure a monster will get a gun and kill innocent people.

As for driving a car, using pressure cookers, taking over an aircraft or any other means to take a human life, guns seem to be the tool of choice.

Let Me correct this for you.

Common sense gun regulations WILL NOT prevent a monster from getting a gun. FULL STOP

Gun regulations serve to harm ONLY the innocent.

Oh bullshit. The only innocents are those shot, killed or maimed and the families and friends of those victims attacked by the monsters. MONSTERS YOU enable and that makes you culpable.

You are the one spouting bullshit. It is a fact, that gun regulations regulate ONLY those who would obey that law to begin.

Sorry, I triggered you, but the truth doesn't care about your feelings.

My feelings aren't hurt, I'm convinced my beliefs are sound, logical, valid and ethical.

Your comment [" You are the one spouting bullshit. It is a fact, that gun regulations regulate ONLY those who would obey that law to begin"] is self evident.

The Bill Passed by the H. of Rep. that Moscow Mitch has not brought to the floor requires a background check which anyone who is honest, sane, sober and law abiding should not fear and ought to support.

Other arguments presented by those opposed to gun regulations may be an inconvenience - licensing and registration for example - are common sense regulations no different than car ownership or operation.

Lol
If you read the details on those frivolous gun control laws waiting in the house, they are not the least bit reasonable for law-abiding firearm owners

 

[Wry Catcher]

"How do you know for sure he did not own one?"
"Oh, his family said so, you know the ones trying to control the narrative..."
"Find the quote where Stoner ever denied owning one."

Don't treat me like I'm stupid or something.

Look, his family is they only ones to say if he owned one or not. His family "feels" that he only intended for the military to have them.

I don't think your stupid, never said that, sorry if you got that impression. I am unsure why I can't be skeptical on what the motives of the family are. Maybe you should get a hold of them so you can have them sue like you want them to.

I'm done giving you a hard time. Don't think you convinced me or anything, though.

Think of it like this. You hear a knock at the door and then,

Ma'am, how you doing I'm officer dude, and this is officer guy. Is it okay if we come in ? Thank you. Mrs. Lady, we received a complaint that you made a disturbing post on a website called USMB. Here it is right here, do you recognize it at all? You do? Okay so we need to take a look at your browser history real fast, ma'am do you own any firearms? No? Well, for the sake of public safety we need to go head and have a look. What ? We can't do that? Well Mrs. Lady, due to the nature of your post by law and executive order of president Trump we can. We will also need your car keys and we will need to remove all objects from your house that we deem dangerous. Don't worry Mrs. Lady, this is all easy to work out. Just show up to court on this day and you will be able to tell your side of the story and work it all out. In the mean time, no driving as your DL has been suspended until this is cleared up.

Mean while, if your lucky you will get a court date in the near future, and hopefully you got the cash to cover the impound fee as well as court fees. Do you work? Because if news of the visit gets back to your employer that the cops had to come to your house for the stated reason you may get fired.

"How do you know for sure he did not own one?"
"Oh, his family said so, you know the ones trying to control the narrative..."
"Find the quote where Stoner ever denied owning one."

Don't treat me like I'm stupid or something.

Look, his family is they only ones to say if he owned one or not. His family "feels" that he only intended for the military to have them.

I don't think your stupid, never said that, sorry if you got that impression. I am unsure why I can't be skeptical on what the motives of the family are. Maybe you should get a hold of them so you can have them sue like you want them to.

I'm done giving you a hard time. Don't think you convinced me or anything, though.

Think of it like this. You hear a knock at the door and then,

Ma'am, how you doing I'm officer dude, and this is officer guy. Is it okay if we come in ? Thank you. Mrs. Lady, we received a complaint that you made a disturbing post on a website called USMB. Here it is right here, do you recognize it at all? You do? Okay so we need to take a look at your browser history real fast, ma'am do you own any firearms? No? Well, for the sake of public safety we need to go head and have a look. What ? We can't do that? Well Mrs. Lady, due to the nature of your post by law and executive order of president Trump we can. We will also need your car keys and we will need to remove all objects from your house that we deem dangerous. Don't worry Mrs. Lady, this is all easy to work out. Just show up to court on this day and you will be able to tell your side of the story and work it all out. In the mean time, no driving as your DL has been suspended until this is cleared up.

Mean while, if your lucky you will get a court date in the near future, and hopefully you got the cash to cover the impound fee as well as court fees. Do you work? Because if news of the visit gets back to your employer that the cops had to come to your house for the stated reason you may get fired.

Pure fiction. This is serious. Wise up.

How is it fiction? What part of my "what if" is implausible?

It is possible, if and only if Trump or another despot wins an election by fraud or the electoral college. We have never had an Authoritarian / Megalomaniac like Trump in the office of POTUS until Jan 20th, 2017.

Trump's rhetoric is already a danger to all of us, and the sage comments by Martin Niemoller ought to remind you and others who cherish liberty to inscribe this on your brain:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemöller: "First they came for the Socialists..."