Problem solved

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It's typically people who don't want to comply with federal warrants that push that type of agenda. People who think that police outside their home with a lawful arrest warrant are a "threat" and they have the right to fight back.

That is a different issue. That is not a serious armed rebellion.

Ironically, the more realistic scenario causing serious armed rebellion is if this Florida shooting causes those in power to enact total confiscation. Every serious gun owner would resist.

 

[hazlnut]

you are trying to use lawsuits to ruin gun companies to lessen the ability of citizens to get guns. To do this you pervert tort law to blame a manufacturer for a product that is not malfunctioning, that is doing it's designed task, (propel a projectile) for political gain.

Stop trying to be "smart", it isn't working.

And lowering the bar to remove a right to diagnosed would be abused by gun grabber states.

lawsuits can shine a light on business practices and product safety issues.

there's a great documentary on Netflix about the McDonald's coffee lawsuit. People are asked what they remember about the story and then shown a picture of the actual burn... People are surprised how misinformed they are about the facts of that case. The notion of a "frivolous" lawsuit is exaggerated. Courts are setup to fairly examine the merits of a case before allowing it to go forward. But certain industries have lobbied for laws to prevent any examination of any case that might threaten their profits.


please explain "remove a right" as you know SCOTUS has said --

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

That's Scalia reading the majority opinion in District of Columbia v Heller.

So explain how removing guns from a person that police, medical professionals, reasonably and fairly believe is dangerous is a violation of their rights. (given the courts interpretation of limits on the 2nd)

Do you not have faith of the checks and balances in our society? In government oversight, citizen panels?

 

[Avatar4321]

How does holding someone other than the shooter accountable solve the problem?

If I rob you should the government punish hazel to stop me? How does that make any sense whatsoever?

 

[hazlnut]

It's typically people who don't want to comply with federal warrants that push that type of agenda. People who think that police outside their home with a lawful arrest warrant are a "threat" and they have the right to fight back.

That is a different issue. That is not a serious armed rebellion.

Ironically, the more realistic scenario causing serious armed rebellion is if this Florida shooting causes those in power to enact total confiscation. Every serious gun owner would resist.

Total confiscation would never happen. That's a crazy Alex Cox make believe scare scene. Think about the logistics of getting every member of law enforcement and their support staff to turn on their friends and neighbors, the people they go to church with, the people their kids go to school with... If you know policemen, or law enforcement professionals, they don't think like that.

Then what, a police state? That would shut down our consumer driven economy, dry up the tax base, and collapse the markets. There's no upside to a "gun grab".

I trust the checks and balances in our system, the oversight, the courts to protect our rights when states over reach - DC v Heller.

What's broken is when one industry is able to shutdown a discussion about reasonable solutions before it even gets started.

 

[Defiant1]

I agree that the people close to Cruz failed to act much sooner. They ignored a lot of red flags.

Maybe we need more education on this type of stuff to help prevent it.


But, at the same time....shoot back.

You could say that about Adam Lanza. -- from one official report --

The authors also noted that despite multiple developmental and mental health problems, Lanza had not received adequate mental health treatment. They wrote: "It is fair to surmise that, had Lanza's mental illness been adequately treated in the last years of his life, one predisposing factor to the tragedy of Sandy Hook might have been mitigated"

Holmes also told a University of Colorado psychiatrist about his shooting fantasies. You'd think that local police would be empowered to remove weapons until they could determine how serious of threat he was.

Adam Lanza did not own any weapons.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

you are trying to use lawsuits to ruin gun companies to lessen the ability of citizens to get guns. To do this you pervert tort law to blame a manufacturer for a product that is not malfunctioning, that is doing it's designed task, (propel a projectile) for political gain.

Stop trying to be "smart", it isn't working.

And lowering the bar to remove a right to diagnosed would be abused by gun grabber states.

lawsuits can shine a light on business practices and product safety issues.

there's a great documentary on Netflix about the McDonald's coffee lawsuit. People are asked what they remember about the story and then shown a picture of the actual burn... People are surprised how misinformed they are about the facts of that case. The notion of a "frivolous" lawsuit is exaggerated. Courts are setup to fairly examine the merits of a case before allowing it to go forward. But certain industries have lobbied for laws to prevent any examination of any case that might threaten their profits.


please explain "remove a right" as you know SCOTUS has said --

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

That's Scalia reading the majority opinion in District of Columbia v Heller.

So explain how removing guns from a person that police, medical professionals, reasonably and fairly believe is dangerous is a violation of their rights. (given the courts interpretation of limits on the 2nd)

Do you not have faith of the checks and balances in our society? In government oversight, citizen panels?

It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.

I plan on acquiring an FFL when I move to Florida. When I have my FBI background check and issued my license I can then purchase if I want a 50 cal machine gun. Is there an issue with that, if the FBI says I am cleared to own one?

https://www.gunbroker.com/50-Cal-Machine-Gun/Browse.aspx?Keywords=50&Cats=3024

The seller of this item assumes all responsibility for this listing. You must contact the seller to resolve any questions or concerns before placing a bid. Payment must be made using U.S. dollars ($) unless otherwise stated in the listing. Firearms may only be shipped to a licensed dealer (FFL Holder). Some listed items may not be legal in every state. Complete your purchase within the law.

 

[martybegan]

you are trying to use lawsuits to ruin gun companies to lessen the ability of citizens to get guns. To do this you pervert tort law to blame a manufacturer for a product that is not malfunctioning, that is doing it's designed task, (propel a projectile) for political gain.

Stop trying to be "smart", it isn't working.

And lowering the bar to remove a right to diagnosed would be abused by gun grabber states.

lawsuits can shine a light on business practices and product safety issues.

there's a great documentary on Netflix about the McDonald's coffee lawsuit. People are asked what they remember about the story and then shown a picture of the actual burn... People are surprised how misinformed they are about the facts of that case. The notion of a "frivolous" lawsuit is exaggerated. Courts are setup to fairly examine the merits of a case before allowing it to go forward. But certain industries have lobbied for laws to prevent any examination of any case that might threaten their profits.


please explain "remove a right" as you know SCOTUS has said --

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

That's Scalia reading the majority opinion in District of Columbia v Heller.

So explain how removing guns from a person that police, medical professionals, reasonably and fairly believe is dangerous is a violation of their rights. (given the courts interpretation of limits on the 2nd)

Do you not have faith of the checks and balances in our society? In government oversight, citizen panels?

You are trying to reduce the ability of a law abiding person to get a gun by putting manufacturer's out of business. Stop being coy about it.

Your highlighted portion does not mean some bureaucrat can say a person cannot have a gun. That is left to due process via a judge.

We all know what would happen if you got your way, some pencil pusher could ban a person's gun ownership, and the locality could make a person wait years to get their day in court to challenge it. Again, stop being coy

The simple fact is assholes like you lie all the time, so why should we trust you with anything?

**** off.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What's broken is when one industry is able to shutdown a discussion about reasonable solutions before it even gets started.

No solution will work BUT shooting back. Every solution proposed would do JACK SHIT about this problem.

You can't round up guns. People will still slip though the cracks.

SHOOT BACK is the only solution.

 

[Papageorgio]

Repeal state and federal laws shielding gun manufacturers from product liability? Let juries in these communities sort out what a modified AR-15 is for. Imagine that, a company has to take responsibility
for a product doing what it was designed to do.


Let the ATF share trace data with local law enforcement and the CDC. You know, let everybody see the evidence and talk about better enforcement guidelines.


Lower the mental illness standard from adjudicated to diagnosed. (as it is in several states) Let psychiatrists report credible diagnosis to police who respond appropriately, removing weapons.



Let's have a gun grab -- from felons, wife beaters, and seriously mentally ill people. Everyone else, enjoy your hobby, I do.




The above are all reasonable statements, ideas for discussion. However, watch the mouth foaming that follows.....


Facebook could easily write an algorithm that would have flagged the Florida shooter. They could have forwarded the EVIDENCE of serious mental derangement to local police and SAVED LIVES.

I know your intentions are good but the Facebook idea is the scariest idea I have seen to date.

 

[Avatar4321]

My entire country is a “gun free zone”. Only cops and crooks have guns.

Only the USA lets anyone who wants a gun to buy an AR15. 35,000 people a year die by gun violence in the US every year.

Semi-automatic weapons and 2nd Amendment have become the American suicide pact.

You're welcome, by the way.

I'll explain.

The U.S. has the most powerful military the world has ever known. That military likely protects your country. The people controlling our military have the power to do REALLY horrible things. We, the people, keep those people in check by the threat of armed rebellion.

Because we, the people are armed,, your country is allowed to exist without being overrun by warlords.

Again, you're welcome.

If you think we (citizens) pose any threat of armed rebellion, you're nuts.

Our economy is consumer driven and our Government functions on tax revenue. A military state type gun grab would destroy both-- the U.S. Government has no interest in ruining its own economy and tax base.

After the obama administration enforced policies that deliberately hurt the economy for most of a decade how can anyone honestly say government has no interest in ruining its own economy?

 

[hazlnut]

How does holding someone other than the shooter accountable solve the problem?

If I rob you should the government punish hazel to stop me? How does that make any sense whatsoever?

How does not even allowing us to question accountability make things better? Is it not a fair question -- how was this person able to pass a background check? (if he really did)

Is it unfair to interview the person(s) who sold him the guns? Maybe they followed the law but wish they had somehow known. If they wish they had known the man was mentally deranged, then don't we owe it to them to look into doing better?

How does not even allowing ATF to share trace data with local law enforcement and CDC enable us to better enforce current law?

Most gun dealers can spot a straw purchaser or suspicious purchasing habits. Most won't tolerate that. Isn't that a good thing? Why shouldn't we hold the small percentage of bad apple dealers accountable?

 

[Rustic]

Repeal state and federal laws shielding gun manufacturers from product liability? Let juries in these communities sort out what a modified AR-15 is for. Imagine that, a company has to take responsibility
for a product doing what it was designed to do.


Let the ATF share trace data with local law enforcement and the CDC. You know, let everybody see the evidence and talk about better enforcement guidelines.


Lower the mental illness standard from adjudicated to diagnosed. (as it is in several states) Let psychiatrists report credible diagnosis to police who respond appropriately, removing weapons.



Let's have a gun grab -- from felons, wife beaters, and seriously mentally ill people. Everyone else, enjoy your hobby, I do.




The above are all reasonable statements, ideas for discussion. However, watch the mouth foaming that follows.....


Facebook could easily write an algorithm that would have flagged the Florida shooter. They could have forwarded the EVIDENCE of serious mental derangement to local police and SAVED LIVES.

Every time Career politicians/deep state and their federal government lie to the American people they should be sued over and over and over again OK?

 

[Rustic]

put the parents in jail--------crazy kid went out and managed to buy -------no a BB gun-----AN ASSAULT
RIFLE-----and they did nothing

The "crazy kid" is 19. How is that the parent's fault?

And for the record, there is really no such thing as an assault rifle, that is just a made up term.

People know their kids are in trouble. All these reports are this kid was angry, making threats against others, and obsessed with guns. That people in his social circle circle said that if someone were to go to school with a gun, it would be this guy.

There has to be a discipline trail leading to his expulsion. This isn’t someone who just “snapped”. This is a guy who was living in a powder keg while giving off sparks. Everyone saw it. Nobody did anything.

If your child is mentally ill, untreated and acting out, to say the parents bear no responsibility for his behaviour is a fallacy. It is their responsibility in society to raise their child to be a functioning, productive adult. These people raised a homocidal sociopath and you say they bear no responsibility for that?

Gun free zones.

My entire country is a “gun free zone”. Only cops and crooks have guns.

Only the USA lets anyone who wants a gun to buy an AR15. 35,000 people a year die by gun violence in the US every year.

Semi-automatic weapons and 2nd Amendment have become the American suicide pact.

Shit. For brains, lumping suicide together with homicide is lying...

 

[Rustic]

My entire country is a “gun free zone”. Only cops and crooks have guns.

Only the USA lets anyone who wants a gun to buy an AR15. 35,000 people a year die by gun violence in the US every year.

Semi-automatic weapons and 2nd Amendment have become the American suicide pact.

You're welcome, by the way.

I'll explain.

The U.S. has the most powerful military the world has ever known. That military likely protects your country. The people controlling our military have the power to do REALLY horrible things. We, the people, keep those people in check by the threat of armed rebellion.

Because we, the people are armed,, your country is allowed to exist without being overrun by warlords.

Again, you're welcome.

Let’s apply some common sense to this total lack of logic on your part.

Yes, you have the most powerful military in the world and they have the most devasting and powerful weapons ever created. The notion that civilians need to be armed to protect themselves from their government, while not entirely without merit, denied the reality that your puny guns aren’t any kind of match for MOAB’s, tanks, smart bombs, and the myriad ways the government has to put down an insurrection.

If you want an example, try David Koresh and the Branch Davidians in Waco. And the government didn’t even break out their big guns for that one.

The idea that an army of civilians armed with handguns and rifles would be able to protect your democracy from the US military is laughable in the extreme.

If you want to protect yourself from your government, the way to do it is through your ballot box. Stop electing people in the pay of corporations and the elite. Elect a government “by the people, of the people, and for the people”, instead of those who serve the elite.

The US military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment they would never go against their own Citizens.
Firearm confiscation would cost millions of people’s lives on both sides… Fact

 

[Avatar4321]

How does holding someone other than the shooter accountable solve the problem?

If I rob you should the government punish hazel to stop me? How does that make any sense whatsoever?

How does not even allowing us to question accountability make things better? Is it not a fair question -- how was this person able to pass a background check? (if he really did)

Is it unfair to interview the person(s) who sold him the guns? Maybe they followed the law but wish they had somehow known. If they wish they had known the man was mentally deranged, then don't we owe it to them to look into doing better?

How does not even allowing ATF to share trace data with local law enforcement and CDC enable us to better enforce current law?

Most gun dealers can spot a straw purchaser or suspicious purchasing habits. Most won't tolerate that. Isn't that a good thing? Why shouldn't we hold the small percentage of bad apple dealers accountable?

How does punishing someone who didn’t do anything question accountability?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

My entire country is a “gun free zone”. Only cops and crooks have guns.

Only the USA lets anyone who wants a gun to buy an AR15. 35,000 people a year die by gun violence in the US every year.

Semi-automatic weapons and 2nd Amendment have become the American suicide pact.

You're welcome, by the way.

I'll explain.

The U.S. has the most powerful military the world has ever known. That military likely protects your country. The people controlling our military have the power to do REALLY horrible things. We, the people, keep those people in check by the threat of armed rebellion.

Because we, the people are armed,, your country is allowed to exist without being overrun by warlords.

Again, you're welcome.

If you think we (citizens) pose any threat of armed rebellion, you're nuts.

Our economy is consumer driven and our Government functions on tax revenue. A military state type gun grab would destroy both-- the U.S. Government has no interest in ruining its own economy and tax base.

The majority of the Military and Cops have a like mindset.
If it ever comes to armed rebellion you can bet they'll be leading the charge.

 

[hazlnut]

I know your intentions are good but the Facebook idea is the scariest idea I have seen to date.

If you own a Sandwich shop and every Thursday a customer comes in and is overheard saying really disturbing things, showing you his gun, talking about "doing something big"... and you call the police to report your concerns... why is that scary?

It would cost facebook some money to hire people to make sure it's done in manner that is effective and not opening them up to liability, but passing on information to law enforcement about a person who meets REASONABLE CRITERIA of concern... if they save a life, isn't it worth the extra expense.

Let me amend myself - the overall business policy and implementation would be complicated and expensive. Writing the code to flag people for review would be easy.

Ever try to load a video with copyrighted music onto facebook. They can flag that in a minute... pretty sure they can flag people showing off guns and using language or phrases indicating a threat... hiring staff to review the posts and coming up with a criteria for responsible reporting in the interest of public safety... expensive yes... worth doing?

Why is this hard? Oh right, they'll lose a few customers when it gets out... Darn, our profits might dip...

 

[hazlnut]

My entire country is a “gun free zone”. Only cops and crooks have guns.

Only the USA lets anyone who wants a gun to buy an AR15. 35,000 people a year die by gun violence in the US every year.

Semi-automatic weapons and 2nd Amendment have become the American suicide pact.

You're welcome, by the way.

I'll explain.

The U.S. has the most powerful military the world has ever known. That military likely protects your country. The people controlling our military have the power to do REALLY horrible things. We, the people, keep those people in check by the threat of armed rebellion.

Because we, the people are armed,, your country is allowed to exist without being overrun by warlords.

Again, you're welcome.

If you think we (citizens) pose any threat of armed rebellion, you're nuts.

Our economy is consumer driven and our Government functions on tax revenue. A military state type gun grab would destroy both-- the U.S. Government has no interest in ruining its own economy and tax base.

The majority of the Military and Cops have a like mindset.
If it ever comes to armed rebellion you can bet they'll be leading the charge.

What charge?

 

[Rustic]

Repeal state and federal laws shielding gun manufacturers from product liability? Let juries in these communities sort out what a modified AR-15 is for. Imagine that, a company has to take responsibility
for a product doing what it was designed to do.


Let the ATF share trace data with local law enforcement and the CDC. You know, let everybody see the evidence and talk about better enforcement guidelines.


Lower the mental illness standard from adjudicated to diagnosed. (as it is in several states) Let psychiatrists report credible diagnosis to police who respond appropriately, removing weapons.



Let's have a gun grab -- from felons, wife beaters, and seriously mentally ill people. Everyone else, enjoy your hobby, I do.




The above are all reasonable statements, ideas for discussion. However, watch the mouth foaming that follows.....


Facebook could easily write an algorithm that would have flagged the Florida shooter. They could have forwarded the EVIDENCE of serious mental derangement to local police and SAVED LIVES.

Just another attempted end run around the 2nd amendment.

Get it repealed (if you can) if you want to end private gun ownership, which is what you would need to do to prevent things like this from happening. (even then it probably wouldn't work)

Explain specifically how anything I suggested is an "end run"...

Credible reports of serious mental illness...

Sharing of trade data?

The sharing of AIDS infectors isn't allowed, but you want to share data of people with mental problems.

HIPPA laws are important. But there needs to be a balance. Also, sharing info with police doesn't make it public.

People who work with children in CA and other states are required by law to report child abuse -- bruises, statements by the child, etc. At which time a social worker and police visit the home and look into it. Is this perfect, NO. Have millions of children been rescued from horrible situations. YES.

If a health care professional or teacher observes disturbing behavior and threats, when the police investigate, why aren't they allowed to temporarily remove guns IF CERTAIN CRITERIA ARE MEANT. Why are police not allowed to take preventative measures?

I believe one reason is because more that 60% of gun deaths are suicides and our society cynically sees this as "victimless" or a choice. Suicide happens when Major Depression or PTSD goes untreated. People who take anti-dresspents or anti-psychotics are not dangerous, when they take their meds and get needed therapy. However, when they stop therapy, go off meds--THEIR CHOICE-- if their behavior poses an obvious risk, then why don't we, as a compassionate society, intervene?

You’re a ******* control freak, basically is what you’re saying.
Lumping suicides together with homicides/murder is lying...

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

My entire country is a “gun free zone”. Only cops and crooks have guns.

Only the USA lets anyone who wants a gun to buy an AR15. 35,000 people a year die by gun violence in the US every year.

Semi-automatic weapons and 2nd Amendment have become the American suicide pact.

You're welcome, by the way.

I'll explain.

The U.S. has the most powerful military the world has ever known. That military likely protects your country. The people controlling our military have the power to do REALLY horrible things. We, the people, keep those people in check by the threat of armed rebellion.

Because we, the people are armed,, your country is allowed to exist without being overrun by warlords.

Again, you're welcome.

If you think we (citizens) pose any threat of armed rebellion, you're nuts.

Our economy is consumer driven and our Government functions on tax revenue. A military state type gun grab would destroy both-- the U.S. Government has no interest in ruining its own economy and tax base.

The majority of the Military and Cops have a like mindset.
If it ever comes to armed rebellion you can bet they'll be leading the charge.

What charge?

Do you have a problem with the english language?