Las Vegas Shooter's Criminal Past---Buh, Buh, BUh, He's Got RIGHTS!

[daws101]

TRANSLATION: I can't back up what I said, so I'll try to pretend it's YOUR job to prove MY point.

you and marty been dating long?
if background checks were implemented properly they would be far more effective...

Effective at what? The California guy PASSED ALL HIS CHECKS.

that means the law must be amended adding psychological testing....

 

[martybegan]

sure it does if it were implemented correctly...
my personal solution to the problem would be to severely limit the amount of ammo, clips, and guns that could be possessed by anyone.

So prior restraint on law abiding people. A law that would be ignored by criminals, and thus the law abiding people would be at a disadvantage.

No dice.

your having that dream again, where you think you're right....
no shit head I'm talking about ENFORCING THAT LAW...
FUNNY HOW YOU YAMMER ABOUT BEING LAW ABIDING !
Ever run a red light? not pay a bill? steal anything?

You still don't get it. Not surprising. The people who want to go on a rampage will find a way around ALL of your little laws. The only result would be a homeowner limited in his means of defense because he/she decided to follow the rules, and the armed thug coming after them did not, and now outguns them.

The rest of your screed is butthurt from me negging you.

 

[martybegan]

you and marty been dating long?
if background checks were implemented properly they would be far more effective...

Effective at what? The California guy PASSED ALL HIS CHECKS.

that means the law must be amended adding psychological testing....

Nope. Then the government can pick and choose who gets a weapon by messing with the definition of crazy. Unless I have been convicted of a felony, or found mentally incompetent by a judge my right to bear arms cannot be infringed.

 

[martybegan]

You catch on quick, don't you, sparky? Criminals ignore the law, honest citizens don't. So gun laws affect honest citizens, they don't affect criminals. Which means you're helping criminals with the equation that they have guns and their victims don't.

This is what our argument has been based on since the dawn of time. Is that only dawning on you now? Remarkable.

An that's why your argument fails. It's based on the assumption that gun laws can't be enforced. The truth is gun laws can work and do work. The NRA spends millions to convince people that restrictions on gun sales won't work and the gun lobby works at both the federal and state legal to see that any gun legislation is watered down, full of loopholes and doesn't get the needed funding.

How well did California's gun laws work in the Rogers' case? How well do Chicago's gun laws work?

 

[daws101]

So prior restraint on law abiding people. A law that would be ignored by criminals, and thus the law abiding people would be at a disadvantage.

No dice.

your having that dream again, where you think you're right....
no shit head I'm talking about ENFORCING THAT LAW...
FUNNY HOW YOU YAMMER ABOUT BEING LAW ABIDING !
Ever run a red light? not pay a bill? steal anything?

You still don't get it. Not surprising. The people who want to go on a rampage will find a way around ALL of your little laws. The only result would be a homeowner limited in his means of defense because he/she decided to follow the rules, and the armed thug coming after them did not, and now outguns them.

The rest of your screed is butthurt from me negging you.

wrong again shithead , I do get it.
and they are your laws too ,if not you have no dog in this fight.
the home owner being left defenseless ploy is complete bullshit!
I not advocating taking guns from "responsible" owners.
what I am advocating is putting force behind gun laws.
as to people going on rampages, there will always be the potential for that,guns just make it easier to kill more people..
as to being me being butthurt by anything you say or do is laughable!

 

[daws101]

Effective at what? The California guy PASSED ALL HIS CHECKS.

that means the law must be amended adding psychological testing....

Nope. Then the government can pick and choose who gets a weapon by messing with the definition of crazy. Unless I have been convicted of a felony, or found mentally incompetent by a judge my right to bear arms cannot be infringed.

yes shit head there are already definitions of mental illness in the law...so you'rE fucked..
my guess is you're just afraid YOU MIGHT FIT ONE....

 

[jc456]

that means the law must be amended adding psychological testing....

Nope. Then the government can pick and choose who gets a weapon by messing with the definition of crazy. Unless I have been convicted of a felony, or found mentally incompetent by a judge my right to bear arms cannot be infringed.

yes shit head there are already definitions of mental illness in the law...so you'rE fucked..
my guess is you're just afraid YOU MIGHT FIT ONE....

Dude you have real issues. I wouldn't give you a gun! You would shoot your own self with it. haahahahahhahahahahahahaha, you're a toote. You are chasing your tail and it's funny watching it.

 

[martybegan]

your having that dream again, where you think you're right....
no shit head I'm talking about ENFORCING THAT LAW...
FUNNY HOW YOU YAMMER ABOUT BEING LAW ABIDING !
Ever run a red light? not pay a bill? steal anything?

You still don't get it. Not surprising. The people who want to go on a rampage will find a way around ALL of your little laws. The only result would be a homeowner limited in his means of defense because he/she decided to follow the rules, and the armed thug coming after them did not, and now outguns them.

The rest of your screed is butthurt from me negging you.

wrong again shithead , I do get it.
and they are your laws too ,if not you have no dog in this fight.
the home owner being left defenseless ploy is complete bullshit!
I not advocating taking guns from "responsible" owners.
what I am advocating is putting force behind gun laws.
as to people going on rampages, there will always be the potential for that,guns just make it easier to kill more people..
as to being me being butthurt by anything you say or do is laughable!

all you are proposing is the same shit. limit this, limit that, make it harder for people to get guns. blah blah blah. The dog I have in this fight is I LIVE in a state where the only purpose of the laws is to make it so difficult for a law abiding citizen to get a firearm so that many don't even try. To make it so expensive as to deter people from taking on the cost, and of course, to make loopholes so anyone in law enforcement is exempt from said laws, even for their own private weapons.

 

[martybegan]

Nope. Then the government can pick and choose who gets a weapon by messing with the definition of crazy. Unless I have been convicted of a felony, or found mentally incompetent by a judge my right to bear arms cannot be infringed.

yes shit head there are already definitions of mental illness in the law...so you'rE fucked..
my guess is you're just afraid YOU MIGHT FIT ONE....

Dude you have real issues. I wouldn't give you a gun! You would shoot your own self with it. haahahahahhahahahahahahaha, you're a toote. You are chasing your tail and it's funny watching it.

I've been consistent in all my posts. its your butthurt ass that keeps dredging up the same tired gun control crap.

You or the government has no right to tell me if I can or cannot own or carry a gun unless a court has decreed that I cannot.

(whoops, you weren't responding to one of my posts. )

 

[daws101]

Nope. Then the government can pick and choose who gets a weapon by messing with the definition of crazy. Unless I have been convicted of a felony, or found mentally incompetent by a judge my right to bear arms cannot be infringed.

yes shit head there are already definitions of mental illness in the law...so you'rE fucked..
my guess is you're just afraid YOU MIGHT FIT ONE....

Dude you have real issues. I wouldn't give you a gun! You would shoot your own self with it. haahahahahhahahahahahahaha, you're a toote. You are chasing your tail and it's funny watching it.

HAVE YOU ALWAYS BEEN THIS WRONG IN ASSESING OTHER PEOPLE ?
my guess is yes.
how am I chasing my tale?
what's really funny is I've owned guns most of my life, so when I read what you faux gunslingers yammer about being out gunned by the bad guys, just means you're shitty marksmen.

 

[daws101]

You still don't get it. Not surprising. The people who want to go on a rampage will find a way around ALL of your little laws. The only result would be a homeowner limited in his means of defense because he/she decided to follow the rules, and the armed thug coming after them did not, and now outguns them.

The rest of your screed is butthurt from me negging you.

wrong again shithead , I do get it.
and they are your laws too ,if not you have no dog in this fight.
the home owner being left defenseless ploy is complete bullshit!
I not advocating taking guns from "responsible" owners.
what I am advocating is putting force behind gun laws.
as to people going on rampages, there will always be the potential for that,guns just make it easier to kill more people..
as to being me being butthurt by anything you say or do is laughable!

all you are proposing is the same shit. limit this, limit that, make it harder for people to get guns. blah blah blah. The dog I have in this fight is I LIVE in a state where the only purpose of the laws is to make it so difficult for a law abiding citizen to get a firearm so that many don't even try. To make it so expensive as to deter people from taking on the cost, and of course, to make loopholes so anyone in law enforcement is exempt from said laws, even for their own private weapons.

waaaaaaaaaaaaa! need a tissue?

 

[martybegan]

wrong again shithead , I do get it.
and they are your laws too ,if not you have no dog in this fight.
the home owner being left defenseless ploy is complete bullshit!
I not advocating taking guns from "responsible" owners.
what I am advocating is putting force behind gun laws.
as to people going on rampages, there will always be the potential for that,guns just make it easier to kill more people..
as to being me being butthurt by anything you say or do is laughable!

all you are proposing is the same shit. limit this, limit that, make it harder for people to get guns. blah blah blah. The dog I have in this fight is I LIVE in a state where the only purpose of the laws is to make it so difficult for a law abiding citizen to get a firearm so that many don't even try. To make it so expensive as to deter people from taking on the cost, and of course, to make loopholes so anyone in law enforcement is exempt from said laws, even for their own private weapons.

waaaaaaaaaaaaa! need a tissue?

 

[jc456]

yes shit head there are already definitions of mental illness in the law...so you'rE fucked..
my guess is you're just afraid YOU MIGHT FIT ONE....

Dude you have real issues. I wouldn't give you a gun! You would shoot your own self with it. haahahahahhahahahahahahaha, you're a toote. You are chasing your tail and it's funny watching it.

HAVE YOU ALWAYS BEEN THIS WRONG IN ASSESING OTHER PEOPLE ?
my guess is yes.
how am I chasing my tale?
what's really funny is I've owned guns most of my life, so when I read what you faux gunslingers yammer about being out gunned by the bad guys, just means you're shitty marksmen.

Oh, I like the freudian slip there, 'tale', yes it is that. You're chasing a tale, a tale you don't understand. You circle and circle and end up in the same spot. Oh that's the chasing a tail scenario. Your tale is one of stupidity and ignorance.

I really don't care if you owned a hundred guns, you shouldn't, you have no idea how to use it.

 

[daws101]

yes shit head there are already definitions of mental illness in the law...so you'rE fucked..
my guess is you're just afraid YOU MIGHT FIT ONE....

Dude you have real issues. I wouldn't give you a gun! You would shoot your own self with it. haahahahahhahahahahahahaha, you're a toote. You are chasing your tail and it's funny watching it.

I've been consistent in all my posts. its your butthurt ass that keeps dredging up the same tired gun control crap.

You or the government has no right to tell me if I can or cannot own or carry a gun unless a court has decreed that I cannot.

wrong again if you truly understood the 2nd amendment you wouldn't be whining so much.
the real question here is not if you can own a gun but how many is a reasonable amount to own.
since you can only reasonably shoot one gun with any accuracy at a time, how many do you really need.
btw the 2nd amendment is the government's way of telling you under what circumstances you can own and use a firearm so yes "they" do have that right!

 

[jc456]

wrong again shithead , I do get it.
and they are your laws too ,if not you have no dog in this fight.
the home owner being left defenseless ploy is complete bullshit!
I not advocating taking guns from "responsible" owners.
what I am advocating is putting force behind gun laws.
as to people going on rampages, there will always be the potential for that,guns just make it easier to kill more people..
as to being me being butthurt by anything you say or do is laughable!

all you are proposing is the same shit. limit this, limit that, make it harder for people to get guns. blah blah blah. The dog I have in this fight is I LIVE in a state where the only purpose of the laws is to make it so difficult for a law abiding citizen to get a firearm so that many don't even try. To make it so expensive as to deter people from taking on the cost, and of course, to make loopholes so anyone in law enforcement is exempt from said laws, even for their own private weapons.

waaaaaaaaaaaaa! need a tissue?

Maybe you do since you've been chasing you tail all day.

 

[daws101]

Dude you have real issues. I wouldn't give you a gun! You would shoot your own self with it. haahahahahhahahahahahahaha, you're a toote. You are chasing your tail and it's funny watching it.

HAVE YOU ALWAYS BEEN THIS WRONG IN ASSESING OTHER PEOPLE ?
my guess is yes.
how am I chasing my tale?
what's really funny is I've owned guns most of my life, so when I read what you faux gunslingers yammer about being out gunned by the bad guys, just means you're shitty marksmen.

Oh, I like the freudian slip there, 'tale', yes it is that. You're chasing a tale, a tale you don't understand. You circle and circle and end up in the same spot. Oh that's the chasing a tail scenario. Your tale is one of stupidity and ignorance.

I really don't care if you owned a hundred guns, you shouldn't, you have no idea how to use it.

wrong again1 your average is zero correct assessments
it's a typo nothing more. I have serious doubts you know who Freud was...
as too not knowing who to use a firearm keep dreamin....

 

[daws101]

all you are proposing is the same shit. limit this, limit that, make it harder for people to get guns. blah blah blah. The dog I have in this fight is I LIVE in a state where the only purpose of the laws is to make it so difficult for a law abiding citizen to get a firearm so that many don't even try. To make it so expensive as to deter people from taking on the cost, and of course, to make loopholes so anyone in law enforcement is exempt from said laws, even for their own private weapons.

waaaaaaaaaaaaa! need a tissue?

Maybe you do since you've been chasing you tail all day.

the chasing your tail line stopped being clever long before you were born....cleverness and originality are not in your dna...

 

[martybegan]

Dude you have real issues. I wouldn't give you a gun! You would shoot your own self with it. haahahahahhahahahahahahaha, you're a toote. You are chasing your tail and it's funny watching it.

I've been consistent in all my posts. its your butthurt ass that keeps dredging up the same tired gun control crap.

You or the government has no right to tell me if I can or cannot own or carry a gun unless a court has decreed that I cannot.

wrong again if you truly understood the 2nd amendment you wouldn't be whining so much.
the real question here is not if you can own a gun but how many is a reasonable amount to own.
since you can only reasonably shoot one gun with any accuracy at a time, how many do you really need.
btw the 2nd amendment is the government's way of telling you under what circumstances you can own and use a firearm so yes "they" do have that right!

I don't read the part of the 2nd where the right to keep and bear arms is limited to a certain number.

and the 2nd amendment says the government cannot infringe on your right, it limits GOVERNMENT, not the PEOPLE.

Your opinion, and the opinion of the government doesn't mean shit unless the 2nd is repealed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

90% of American polled in 2012 wanted background checks, but the NRA got it's way and the infantile, stupid righties support this.


"""A CRIMINAL PAST

Jerad Dwain Miller had a lengthy criminal history dating back at least to 2000 that saw him in and out of jail on felony and misdemeanor charges in both Washington state and in his home state of Indiana.

In 2010 and 2007 he was convicted of drug dealing and possession charges related to marijuana.

Jerad Miller was arrested by Tippecanoe County, Ind., police on a battery charge in 2009 but later found not guilty.

In February 2011, he was arrested on a strangulation battery charge in Dearborn County, Ind., though the result of that case is unclear.

He married Amanda Woodruff in September 2012, according to court records in Lafayette, Ind.

Jerad Miller also was no stranger to police in Benton County, Wash. District Court records there show he was convicted of obstructing a public officer and DUI in August 2002.

In April of that year he was found guilty of assault with intent to cause injury, and also had earlier convictions for third-degree malicious mischief, third-degree theft, harassment and taking a motor vehicle without permission."""""

Shooters carried arsenal, supplies into Sunday rampage | Las Vegas Review-Journal

90 percent of Americans want expanded background checks on guns. Why isn?t this a political slam dunk?

Its funny that you think this would have stopped them.

 

[daws101]

I've been consistent in all my posts. its your butthurt ass that keeps dredging up the same tired gun control crap.

You or the government has no right to tell me if I can or cannot own or carry a gun unless a court has decreed that I cannot.

wrong again if you truly understood the 2nd amendment you wouldn't be whining so much.
the real question here is not if you can own a gun but how many is a reasonable amount to own.
since you can only reasonably shoot one gun with any accuracy at a time, how many do you really need.
btw the 2nd amendment is the government's way of telling you under what circumstances you can own and use a firearm so yes "they" do have that right!

I don't read the part of the 2nd where the right to keep and bear arms is limited to a certain number.

and the 2nd amendment says the government cannot infringe on your right, it limits GOVERNMENT, not the PEOPLE.

Your opinion, and the opinion of the government doesn't mean shit unless the 2nd is repealed.

your ignorance slip is showing.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State.