The ultimate 2nd amendment poll!

[JoeB131]

if the "law" couldn't stop crazy people from buying guns, then no one should get a gun.

Me, I don't give a fuck if you have a gun. You don't need one. Period. If you have one, it's a privilage the rest of us are letting you have.

But if you can't use it responsibly, I have no problem taking it away from you.

But our boys in the local PD are great respectors of the Second Amendment, apparently.

Well, one things for sure you have absolutely no respect for the rule of law. You are an authoritarian who desires to see government's power exercised in an arbitrary, capricious and abusive manner.

I doubt very much your neighbor's 2nd Amendment rights were of any concern to the cops. They were more focused on taking statements, probable cause and examining evidence . . . Again, you seem incapable of understanding that there are rules for government to abide by and criteria that must be proven before a citizens rights can be disabled.

It's easy for you to have such wonderful hindsight and say that Cho or Loughner or Holmes should have been disarmed . . . but, if we were to apply your subjective, untethered to any legal or medical determination criteria there would be many people's rights impacted who present no danger whatsoever.

Your inevitable statement of, "so what, good!" will only confirm my diagnosis of your diminished mental state.

My neighbor irresponsibly discharged his weapon out into the common area of our Condo Complex. That bullet very well could have hit someone in the parking lot. Yet our local Barney Fifes didn't think, "Hey, maybe we should take his gun away from him!" And a few weeks later, he blew his own brains out. Good work. Commendations all around!

The Bullets that Cho, et al. bought they never should have gotten.

Cho was so disturbed that they had to assign private tutors to him. He had been in treatment since he was 8. He had undergone court ordered hospitilization. But, man, that's not enough to get him on a watch list in Virginia! The one stop shopping place for gun nuts.

Again- if Cho can buy a gun, guns are too easy to get. And the same with HOlmes or Loughner. Or the next guy who massacres a bunch of people and we find out he was a complete nutbag who could still get a gun.

 

[zeke]

Hey Abitas you bad muttafukker you. How many people have you shot and killed? You know saving your life and possessions.

Seeing as how you don't want to defend yourself from tyranny. (That is what you said wasn't it, that gun nuts don't fear their govenment?) I guess you either live in fear of your neighbors or they live in fear of you. Gotta shoot someone. Hell the stats show you may end up shooting yourself. You know, with suicides making up a lot of the gun deaths.

But it must be a drag walking around scared all the time.

I apologize if my post #135 (critiquing your comments about me) gave you the impression that I desired to actually hear back from you.

I have no interest engaging in any dialogue with an unhinged person, I just enjoy pointing out your errors in facts and logic.

Your post above is epic ridiculousness and stands on its own needing no commentary from me.

Gee, you didn't have to get all pissy. Just say you never shot and killed anyone. That's what most gun owners have to say. Nope, haven't shot anyone.........yet. Including yourself.

As to the guvmont. YOU said you were not afraid of our government. ANd that your gun loving freinds are not afraid of the government.

And the next time I am responding to a specific poster, stay the fuk out of the conversation.
If you don't want to hear back from the unhinged poster.

And go ahead a post the info that shows that the majority of gun deaths in the USA ARE NOT suicides. Asshole.

 

[Crackerjack]

Yup, because the 2nd Amendment does not authorize you one, Crackerjack.

Here we go back into Jake's rich fantasy life again ...

People like you can't be taken seriously, you know, so go ahead, keep prattling, and I can let it go.

If you start talking libertarian anti-American tripe, then you will hear from me.

I'm shaking in my boots over that one.

Anti-American? Go fuck yourself. You would never have the balls to say anything like that to my face, which is the funny part.

 

[Abatis]

My neighbor irresponsibly discharged his weapon out into the common area of our Condo Complex.

And I am sure that you were eager to share this independent knowledge you had and sign an affidavit attesting to the same?

Yet our local Barney Fifes didn't think, "Hey, maybe we should take his gun away from him!" And a few weeks later, he blew his own brains out. Good work. Commendations all around!

Well, with your statement attesting to your independent knowledge of criminally negligent behavior they should have gone to the DA and he should have moved for a court order removing the weapons from his possession. Short of that court order, the police officers, without any immediate aggrieved party (i.e., domestic violence) could not move to disarm him without risking being referred to as "defendant" in a civil rights lawsuit.

The Bullets that Cho, et al. bought they never should have gotten.

And if frogs had wings . . .

Cho was so disturbed that they had to assign private tutors to him. He had been in treatment since he was 8. He had undergone court ordered hospitilization. But, man, that's not enough to get him on a watch list in Virginia! The one stop shopping place for gun nuts.

And again, Cho being ordered to undergo outpatient care did not meet the legal threshold to impress upon him any gun rights disability. You persist with your detached from legal reality demands on authorities which have zero legitimacy under law and your fall-back position is "then nobody should be able to get a gun" . . .

Again- if Cho can buy a gun, guns are too easy to get. And the same with HOlmes or Loughner. Or the next guy who massacres a bunch of people and we find out he was a complete nutbag who could still get a gun.

And again I'll state that your anger and blame would be better directed at the school officials who knew he was devolving, the mental health community and privacy advocates. The mechanism for barring nuts from buying a gun is there but it relies on those nuts being diagnosed and their status actually entered into the NICS background check database.

This bullshit happens with criminals too . . . The leftist coddling and enabling instead of punishing armed criminals costs lives. Here is St. Louis Police Chief Dan Isom speaking about what he's up against trying to put repeat armed offenders behind bars:

____________________________

"One thing we have to be aware of to give context to this whole problem is that we are looking at an urban problem. It’s much less a suburban or rural problem. It really affects young minorities—Hispanic and black males. . . . When you look at the shooting victims and suspects in these neighborhoods, you see 20 or 30 felony arrests, with eight convictions. Often the convictions don’t result in any jail time at all; they’re getting probation on top of probation.

This has caused a lot of us in cities to move toward federal prosecution, because we know on the state level it’s a hit-and-miss prospect: they’re arrested, they’re convicted, and they come out multiple times.

In Missouri, there’s a type of probation people can receive, and it has made it very difficult for us to establish a person as a convicted felon. I’ve heard other chiefs talking about the fact that a weapons charge in their state is only a misdemeanor offense.

But in St. Louis, a weapons violation can turn out to be no offense at all. An individual will get arrested for a weapons charge, which is a felony, and often they plead to that case and get an SIS—a suspended imposition of sentence. It means that if you serve out your probation, which everybody does, that conviction is erased. So if you’re arrested again with another weapon, you don’t have a conviction on your record, so you’re not a felon in possession of a weapon. If you continue to get multiple SISs, you never become a convicted felon. These offenders will often show up for other crimes, and if they never have a conviction, then you’re never able to put stiffer charges on them."

Page 11, Guns and Crime: Breaking New Ground By Focusing on the Local Impact, Police Executive Research Forum, 2010 - LINK (2.34MB pdf)​

____________________________​

Which means, if you are paying attention, that those repeat gun offenders NEVER BECOME BARRED FROM LEGALLY BUYING A GUN!

If they aren't "criminals" when the background check is done even though they have been caught and released for gun crimes over and over, whose fault is that?

Is that the fault of the 'background check' and the 'NRA' and 'gun fetishists' standing in the way of "reasonable" NEW laws "to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them" and just more reason for you to say that if we can't keep criminals from getting guns then nobody should have a gun?

 

[Abatis]

And the next time I am responding to a specific poster, stay the fuk out of the conversation.

LOL, Yeah, sure, whatever you say Sparky . . .

 

[GuyPinestra]

This message is hidden because JakeStarkey is on your ignore list.

My blood pressure has dropped 20 points...

 

[JoeB131]

My neighbor irresponsibly discharged his weapon out into the common area of our Condo Complex.

And I am sure that you were eager to share this independent knowledge you had and sign an affidavit attesting to the same?

Shouldn't have been a need to. The neighbors called the cops, he lied to them about how the window got shattered. (He tried to claim someone shot in at him, but the glass was all on the outside.) And the Barneys didn't take away his gun at that point. In short, they caught him, red handed, lying to them.

.

[

Cho was so disturbed that they had to assign private tutors to him. He had been in treatment since he was 8. He had undergone court ordered hospitilization. But, man, that's not enough to get him on a watch list in Virginia! The one stop shopping place for gun nuts.

And again, Cho being ordered to undergo outpatient care did not meet the legal threshold to impress upon him any gun rights disability.

Then the legal threshold is too low. This ain't fucking rocket science, man.

And the rest is the typical Derpa-derp about minorities and crime and all the other "blame everyone but the easy access to guns" the Fetishists go on about. So I'm going to just ignore it.

Consider this. Every other major industrialized country in the world has tighter controls on guns than we do. They have less murders, less people in prison, etc.

I really love the line about "Coddling" criminals. Seriously, What the Fuck? We lock up 2 million Americans and have another 7 million on probation, parole or supervision. We lock up more people than Communist China does.

 

[Antares]

You aren't letting anyone have anything kid.

You don't have that "authority", now if you THINK you do come try and take my guns.

The idea that someone as crazy as Cho or Loughner could get a gun is a "right" is what is crazy. if current background checks aren't catching these guys, the background check is inadequate.

You are missing the point. Cho and Loughner and the Joker were not crazy in the eyes of the law; none of them was ever involuntarily committed or adjudicated mentally defective.

.

And I can pretty much end the discussion right here.

if the "law" couldn't stop crazy people from buying guns, then no one should get a gun.

Because obviously, in your world, that's kind of the only solution.

Me, I don't give a fuck if you have a gun. You don't need one. Period. If you have one, it's a privilage the rest of us are letting you have.

But if you can't use it responsibly, I have no problem taking it away from you.

 

[JoeB131]

You aren't letting anyone have anything kid.

You don't have that "authority", now if you THINK you do come try and take my guns.

So if they pass a gun law in your state and confiscate your guns, you are really going to shoot at police officers and federal agents?

Really?

Is this what you are telling me?

I just want to make sure that you are clear about this, that you are so much of a gun fetishist that you are willing to kill law enforcement officers rather than comply with a law you don't like.

You are willing to not only put yourself in danger, and these officers, but perhaps your family and neighbors as well?

I'm just wondering how far your fanaticism goes.

 

[Antares]

Period. If you have one, it's a privilage the rest of us are letting you have

I repeat, YOU aren't "letting" anyone have anything..it is not in your power

Now you can spin, dance and deflect all you want, but my point stands.

You aren't letting anyone have anything kid.

You don't have that "authority", now if you THINK you do come try and take my guns.

So if they pass a gun law in your state and confiscate your guns, you are really going to shoot at police officers and federal agents?

Really?

Is this what you are telling me?

I just want to make sure that you are clear about this, that you are so much of a gun fetishist that you are willing to kill law enforcement officers rather than comply with a law you don't like.

You are willing to not only put yourself in danger, and these officers, but perhaps your family and neighbors as well?

I'm just wondering how far your fanaticism goes.

 

[Antares]

You see Joe....we are talking about YOUR words kiddo.

YOUR words, not the law...one must remember what one posts dad...cause I will.

 

[The Professor]

Just like the AR-15... The AK-47 is also semi-automatic, and perfectly legal to own. As for the rest of your points... The Second Amendment is fairly clear.

Then answer the questions.

And an AK-47 is fully automatic.


.

My AK-47 is very semiautomatic, and very legal to own.

So is mine.

I've been told that there are ways to convert it to automatic, but I prefer it to be as it is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, the feds and states can come and take em anytime you act up against the law, Roo.

Tru dat, rat.

You aren't letting anyone have anything kid.

You don't have that "authority", now if you THINK you do come try and take my guns.

You are missing the point. Cho and Loughner and the Joker were not crazy in the eyes of the law; none of them was ever involuntarily committed or adjudicated mentally defective.

.

And I can pretty much end the discussion right here.

if the "law" couldn't stop crazy people from buying guns, then no one should get a gun.

Because obviously, in your world, that's kind of the only solution.

Me, I don't give a fuck if you have a gun. You don't need one. Period. If you have one, it's a privilage the rest of us are letting you have.

But if you can't use it responsibly, I have no problem taking it away from you.

 

[Antares]

Let'em come....

But Joey is hiding behind the law to run from his words....

I am comfy in the knowledge that if the Feds come they'll do so unconstitutionally...and then anything can happen.

Good luck getting the Military to fire on Americans.

Yup, the feds and states can come and take em anytime you act up against the law, Roo.

Tru dat, rat.

You aren't letting anyone have anything kid.

You don't have that "authority", now if you THINK you do come try and take my guns.

And I can pretty much end the discussion right here.

if the "law" couldn't stop crazy people from buying guns, then no one should get a gun.

Because obviously, in your world, that's kind of the only solution.

Me, I don't give a fuck if you have a gun. You don't need one. Period. If you have one, it's a privilage the rest of us are letting you have.

But if you can't use it responsibly, I have no problem taking it away from you.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"So if they pass a gun law in your state and confiscate your guns, you are really going to shoot at police officers and federal agents?"

Unless I was judged criminal or mentally incompetent through due process of law, such a law would itself be illegal as a gross violation of both the US and my State Constitutions. There would be an immediate uprising to replace whatever government was stupid and evil enough to pass such a law.
The right to keep and bear arms is the law of land. You might just as well stop whining about it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

9IDdoc is correct: no one state lege is going to pass a gun confiscation law.

Roo postures that he is a Constitutional authority. If the police comes for him, he will go meekly.

 

[JoeB131]

You see Joe....we are talking about YOUR words kiddo.

YOUR words, not the law...one must remember what one posts dad...cause I will.

Again, you didn't answer my question. If the majority decides we are going to put an end to private gun ownership like the UK did, are you really going to shoot at police officers when they come to collect your guns.

Yes or no. I want to know how far your fanaticism goes and just how fuckin' crazy some of you people are.

 

[JoeB131]

I was in the military, if they told me to go shoot some nutters, I'd have done it in a heartbeat.

Just ask David Koresh.

Let'em come....

But Joey is hiding behind the law to run from his words....

I am comfy in the knowledge that if the Feds come they'll do so unconstitutionally...and then anything can happen.

Good luck getting the Military to fire on Americans.

Yup, the feds and states can come and take em anytime you act up against the law, Roo.

Tru dat, rat.

You aren't letting anyone have anything kid.

You don't have that "authority", now if you THINK you do come try and take my guns.

 

[JoeB131]

"So if they pass a gun law in your state and confiscate your guns, you are really going to shoot at police officers and federal agents?"

Unless I was judged criminal or mentally incompetent through due process of law, such a law would itself be illegal as a gross violation of both the US and my State Constitutions. There would be an immediate uprising to replace whatever government was stupid and evil enough to pass such a law.
The right to keep and bear arms is the law of land. You might just as well stop whining about it.

Scalia dies of a heart attack. Obama appoints a liberal. Heller gets overturned as an awful idea and the feds start passing meaningful gun control.

I ask again, are you going to shoot at police officers when they enforce these laws?

 

[Antares]

Your "question" is an attempt to deflect from your own stupid words.

You don't have the authority to "allow" anyone to keep their guns...nomatter you spin, shuck, or jive those are your words...own them.

You got caught being stupid, deal with it.

You see Joe....we are talking about YOUR words kiddo.

YOUR words, not the law...one must remember what one posts dad...cause I will.

Again, you didn't answer my question. If the majority decides we are going to put an end to private gun ownership like the UK did, are you really going to shoot at police officers when they come to collect your guns.

Yes or no. I want to know how far your fanaticism goes and just how fuckin' crazy some of you people are.