What Number of "Mass Shootings" will Justify overruling of the 2nd Amendment?

[OldLady]

Not quite true. There are a finite number of markers, and when mixed, with a common ingredient, there is a near 100 percent chance that the individual will commit an act of physical violence in their life time.

Mass shooters are of two varieties:

The political jihadist (who is a bit difficult to profile)

Those who fit a certain profile with a finite number of markers that CAN be identified and dealt with before they commit an illegal act. The solution is a civil intervention and does not involved any contact with criminal actions.

I specifically said "These mass shootings are USUALLY carried out by lone, mentally disturbed, crazed madmen lashing out"
Please review the list of US "Mass Shootings". You will find I am correct.

Those who fit a certain profile with a finite number of markers that CAN be identified and dealt with before they commit an illegal act. The solution is a civil intervention and does not involved any contact with criminal actions.

So who do you give this power to? And who gets to determine those markers? Could being a Trump Supporter be one of the markers? Most on the Left would say "absolutely".

What happens if someone fits too many of those "markers"? Are their guns then automatically confiscated even before they commit any crime? (That would sure please the radical left!). What happens when radical Leftists gain control of the WH and Congress and decide to manipulate those markers so that ALL Gun Owners are considered "dangerous"?

While all are tragedies, the small number of "mass shootings" and the infinitely small number of lives lost vs the total population is probably not worth giving additional powers to government that could be abused. Every time you hand over powers to the government, you open an new can of worms that can be abused.

While the intent is good, and it might even stop a mass shooting occasionally, there is a definite danger to freedom also associated with handing the government the power to limit our Constitutional Rights by profiling. And like taxation, once a precedent is set, it's all too easy to be extended like the tentacles of an octopus.

1) We already know the markers and they happen when a person is still a minor

2) The "power" is given to the people it's already in the hands of: LEOs and social workers. We're just going to make sure that these people are specifically trained to get results, not simply shuffle paperwork

3) The identifying markers are already known so we just have to use them

4) NOBODY'S guns are automatically taken. Fact is, under the plan, I cannot foresee anyone losing their firearms. They might divest themselves of them (at least temporarily) of their own free will and volition, but the government don't have the authority to take weapons

5) There is no way to manipulate fixed markers

6) The markers are not partisan. For example, a person does certain drugs or they do not and one marker is NOT sufficient for a civil intervention, NOT an attempt to take anyone's firearms

7) There is NO provision to confiscate any weapon at any time

And, so you didn't ask, but made silly assumptions:

The plan I drew up starting many years ago, does not increase the size, power, or scope of government; it does not create any new bureaucracies; it will not cost taxpayers any additional money.... fact is, it would SAVE tax dollars. What it actually does is require the system to use the information they already collect and prevent youth from becoming criminals. The worse thing the plans does is to actually require social workers to earn their money since they are the first to come into contact with troubled families. It would require specially trained officers to investigate and to actually help people. It would require the system to revise their methods of thinking.

An overwhelming majority of mass shooters (save of political jihadists) are created by our own culture. You'd be amazed at how many people we could help IF the government did the job we pay them to do. We simply have to show them the blueprint and teach them how.

The worse thing the plans does is to actually require social workers to earn their money since they are the first to come into contact with troubled families. It would require specially trained officers to investigate and to actually help people. It would require the system to revise their methods of thinking.

What would you have them do differently?

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

You'd be amazed at how many people we could help IF the government did the job we pay them to do. We simply have to show them the blueprint and teach them how.

That's a huge "IF" isn't it?

I think you just proved my point. We CANNOT rely on government to "just do it's job.

Even the Founding Fathers knew that hundreds of years ago....hence the US Constitution.

Last time,......people who put too much faith in and hand over too much power to "government" are self-defeating and asking for oppression. History.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You'd be amazed at how many people we could help IF the government did the job we pay them to do. We simply have to show them the blueprint and teach them how.

That's a huge "IF" isn't it?

I think you just proved my point. We CANNOT rely on government to "just do it's job.

Even the Founding Fathers knew that hundreds of years ago....hence the US Constitution.

Last time,......people who put too much faith in and hand over too much power to "government" are self-defeating and asking for oppression. History.

No you cannot trust the government to do their job. That is why you have that missing ingredient added: ACCOUNTABILITY.

I think you think inside the box too much and aren't willing to try something that would work.

WHY YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE

You tend to believe most strongly that which you hear first

If you change, it will be most likely to that which you hear repeated many times

You tend to believe that which you WANT to believe or that which fits your preconceived ideas or notions

Last, humans are least likely to believe that which is logical and makes sense... ESPECIALLY if it contradicts that which they hear most

 

[Porter Rockwell]

None... it's a blood sport in America.

Not true.
These mass shootings are usually lone, mentally disturbed, crazed madmen who are lashing out.

We used to put people like that in Mental Hospitals, but Big Pharma conned the government into thinking their pills can control teh crazy just as good as 4 walls and a padded cell.

Yeah, Mental Hospitals need to be reopened.

Well, the pills work but crazy people won't take them once they're "free." What we need, instead of mental hospitals, is long-term injections, like the 3 month birth control shot, and a law that if they don't show up for their shots, they get hunted down with the butterfly net and locked back in the mental hospital.

Why would you let dangerous people out of protective custody and / or close supervision in the first place? Did you ever think that over-prescribing drugs is part of the over-all problem?

 

[OldLady]

None... it's a blood sport in America.

Not true.
These mass shootings are usually lone, mentally disturbed, crazed madmen who are lashing out.

We used to put people like that in Mental Hospitals, but Big Pharma conned the government into thinking their pills can control teh crazy just as good as 4 walls and a padded cell.

Yeah, Mental Hospitals need to be reopened.

Well, the pills work but crazy people won't take them once they're "free." What we need, instead of mental hospitals, is long-term injections, like the 3 month birth control shot, and a law that if they don't show up for their shots, they get hunted down with the butterfly net and locked back in the mental hospital.

Why would you let dangerous people out of protective custody and / or close supervision in the first place? Did you ever think that over-prescribing drugs is part of the over-all problem?

Perhaps over prescribing is an issue in some cases, but the problem I ran into over and over again as a social worker was clients who were right CRAZY fuckers because they didn't want to take the meds that would allow them to function on an even keel. I see it at the jail as well. Especially manic depressives. Get them stabilized on their medications because they have to wait in line and take them every day, they suddenly are as reasonable and nonthreatening as anyone else. The Sheriff shakes his head, because he knows that these guys--they are frequent flyers, a lot of them--will stop taking their meds and go bonkers again as soon as they get released. That is why it would be great if a long term form of administration could be developed.

It sounds like your primary argument is to put these people all back in institutions? I'm not saying that in some cases, they shouldn't be, but there is no reason for most of them to be in expensive institutions that will never be able to help them deal with the "real world." We will be paying for their specialized care forever. Social workers in most places have too large case loads and too little authority to prevent an at-large troubled teen from going ballistic. Not even a psychiatrist can predict that. I've been there. Now, if your argument includes hiring enough people to reasonably do the job and giving them the authority they need to put the brakes on an out of control client--okay. Our society does not seem to put much faith in those kinds of people, however.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

None... it's a blood sport in America.

Not true.
These mass shootings are usually lone, mentally disturbed, crazed madmen who are lashing out.

We used to put people like that in Mental Hospitals, but Big Pharma conned the government into thinking their pills can control teh crazy just as good as 4 walls and a padded cell.

Yeah, Mental Hospitals need to be reopened.

Well, the pills work but crazy people won't take them once they're "free." What we need, instead of mental hospitals, is long-term injections, like the 3 month birth control shot, and a law that if they don't show up for their shots, they get hunted down with the butterfly net and locked back in the mental hospital.

Why would you let dangerous people out of protective custody and / or close supervision in the first place? Did you ever think that over-prescribing drugs is part of the over-all problem?

Perhaps over prescribing is an issue in some cases, but the problem I ran into over and over again as a social worker was clients who were right CRAZY fuckers because they didn't want to take the meds that would allow them to function on an even keel. I see it at the jail as well. Especially manic depressives. Get them stabilized on their medications because they have to wait in line and take them every day, they suddenly are as reasonable and nonthreatening as anyone else. The Sheriff shakes his head, because he knows that these guys--they are frequent flyers, a lot of them--will stop taking their meds and go bonkers again as soon as they get released. That is why it would be great if a long term form of administration could be developed.

It sounds like your primary argument is to put these people all back in institutions? I'm not saying that in some cases, they shouldn't be, but there is no reason for most of them to be in expensive institutions that will never be able to help them deal with the "real world." We will be paying for their specialized care forever. Social workers in most places have too large case loads and too little authority to prevent an at-large troubled teen from going ballistic. Not even a psychiatrist can predict that. I've been there. Now, if your argument includes hiring enough people to reasonably do the job and giving them the authority they need to put the brakes on an out of control client--okay. Our society does not seem to put much faith in those kinds of people, however.

I was a foster parent. My experience was that every child entering the system was put on drugs, no questions asked. The moment they go into the system, drugs are administered. So, the first thing we have to do on that issue is change our culture. Drugs should be the last option, not the first.

For every one drug addict in a mental health facility, you have more than 10 in prisons. How are you going to rehabilitate people given those circumstances? What do you think the benefits of society would be if we were to quit over-prescribing drugs?

While drugs play a pivotal role, they are but one metric by which you can measure the problem of mass shooters. People who will grow up to injure and / or kill a fellow human being all follow a certain trajectory of finite behaviors ( being radicalized and turned into a political jihadist being the most difficult to predict.) On the whole we know who over 90 percent of mass shooters are before they ever pick up a weapon.

 

[OldLady]

Not true.
These mass shootings are usually lone, mentally disturbed, crazed madmen who are lashing out.

We used to put people like that in Mental Hospitals, but Big Pharma conned the government into thinking their pills can control teh crazy just as good as 4 walls and a padded cell.

Yeah, Mental Hospitals need to be reopened.

Well, the pills work but crazy people won't take them once they're "free." What we need, instead of mental hospitals, is long-term injections, like the 3 month birth control shot, and a law that if they don't show up for their shots, they get hunted down with the butterfly net and locked back in the mental hospital.

Why would you let dangerous people out of protective custody and / or close supervision in the first place? Did you ever think that over-prescribing drugs is part of the over-all problem?

Perhaps over prescribing is an issue in some cases, but the problem I ran into over and over again as a social worker was clients who were right CRAZY fuckers because they didn't want to take the meds that would allow them to function on an even keel. I see it at the jail as well. Especially manic depressives. Get them stabilized on their medications because they have to wait in line and take them every day, they suddenly are as reasonable and nonthreatening as anyone else. The Sheriff shakes his head, because he knows that these guys--they are frequent flyers, a lot of them--will stop taking their meds and go bonkers again as soon as they get released. That is why it would be great if a long term form of administration could be developed.

It sounds like your primary argument is to put these people all back in institutions? I'm not saying that in some cases, they shouldn't be, but there is no reason for most of them to be in expensive institutions that will never be able to help them deal with the "real world." We will be paying for their specialized care forever. Social workers in most places have too large case loads and too little authority to prevent an at-large troubled teen from going ballistic. Not even a psychiatrist can predict that. I've been there. Now, if your argument includes hiring enough people to reasonably do the job and giving them the authority they need to put the brakes on an out of control client--okay. Our society does not seem to put much faith in those kinds of people, however.

I was a foster parent. My experience was that every child entering the system was put on drugs, no questions asked. The moment they go into the system, drugs are administered. So, the first thing we have to do on that issue is change our culture. Drugs should be the last option, not the first.

For every one drug addict in a mental health facility, you have more than 10 in prisons. How are you going to rehabilitate people given those circumstances? What do you think the benefits of society would be if we were to quit over-prescribing drugs?

While drugs play a pivotal role, they are but one metric by which you can measure the problem of mass shooters. People who will grow up to injure and / or kill a fellow human being all follow a certain trajectory of finite behaviors ( being radicalized and turned into a political jihadist being the most difficult to predict.) On the whole we know who over 90 percent of mass shooters are before they ever pick up a weapon.

On the whole we know who over 90 percent of mass shooters are before they ever pick up a weapon.
Alright, so whoever "we" are, the budding mass shooter does not get drugs, right?
So what specifically do you think should be done once we "know."

 

[Marion Morrison]

Do you really believe someone will try to take your and my guns, or are you just repeating silly crap?

Commie shills advocate for it on sites like these all day, every day in some cases.

Just look at Maine ..person over there, and that one is mild.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

We used to put people like that in Mental Hospitals, but Big Pharma conned the government into thinking their pills can control teh crazy just as good as 4 walls and a padded cell.

Yeah, Mental Hospitals need to be reopened.

Well, the pills work but crazy people won't take them once they're "free." What we need, instead of mental hospitals, is long-term injections, like the 3 month birth control shot, and a law that if they don't show up for their shots, they get hunted down with the butterfly net and locked back in the mental hospital.

Why would you let dangerous people out of protective custody and / or close supervision in the first place? Did you ever think that over-prescribing drugs is part of the over-all problem?

Perhaps over prescribing is an issue in some cases, but the problem I ran into over and over again as a social worker was clients who were right CRAZY fuckers because they didn't want to take the meds that would allow them to function on an even keel. I see it at the jail as well. Especially manic depressives. Get them stabilized on their medications because they have to wait in line and take them every day, they suddenly are as reasonable and nonthreatening as anyone else. The Sheriff shakes his head, because he knows that these guys--they are frequent flyers, a lot of them--will stop taking their meds and go bonkers again as soon as they get released. That is why it would be great if a long term form of administration could be developed.

It sounds like your primary argument is to put these people all back in institutions? I'm not saying that in some cases, they shouldn't be, but there is no reason for most of them to be in expensive institutions that will never be able to help them deal with the "real world." We will be paying for their specialized care forever. Social workers in most places have too large case loads and too little authority to prevent an at-large troubled teen from going ballistic. Not even a psychiatrist can predict that. I've been there. Now, if your argument includes hiring enough people to reasonably do the job and giving them the authority they need to put the brakes on an out of control client--okay. Our society does not seem to put much faith in those kinds of people, however.

I was a foster parent. My experience was that every child entering the system was put on drugs, no questions asked. The moment they go into the system, drugs are administered. So, the first thing we have to do on that issue is change our culture. Drugs should be the last option, not the first.

For every one drug addict in a mental health facility, you have more than 10 in prisons. How are you going to rehabilitate people given those circumstances? What do you think the benefits of society would be if we were to quit over-prescribing drugs?

While drugs play a pivotal role, they are but one metric by which you can measure the problem of mass shooters. People who will grow up to injure and / or kill a fellow human being all follow a certain trajectory of finite behaviors ( being radicalized and turned into a political jihadist being the most difficult to predict.) On the whole we know who over 90 percent of mass shooters are before they ever pick up a weapon.

On the whole we know who over 90 percent of mass shooters are before they ever pick up a weapon.
Alright, so whoever "we" are, the budding mass shooter does not get drugs, right?
So what specifically do you think should be done once we "know."

It's like anything else. If your AC, electricity, plumbing, or a major appliance is giving you problems, you call people to fix it. Just don't call the car mechanic to fix your plumbing.

The first time I discussed this on this thread, I warned that the solutions do not lend themselves to a Tweet or a slogan that fits on a bumper sticker. There is no one size fits all.

Once we know that a youth has met three identifying markers, there should be a special unit within the county police department that is notified via a computerized warning system. Let us say that a teen hits three of those markers in less than a year (there are approximately 16 to 18 positive markers.)

In our example, the teen generates a police report for torturing small animals, then a couple of weeks later is suspended from school, and within a short time later, police are summoned to this child's home for a domestic issue.

Right away, a special warning goes to this specialized unit at the county level. Stage ONE of the intervention begins.

A social worker is sent to interview this teen and get input from the school. You begin building a profile on this child. Another social worker shows up at the home and tells the family what is going on and tries to gain entry into the home so that they can do an initial assessment of the living conditions and the parents. If they think it is warranted they can ASK for permission to do a drug test and test the teen's IQ. The parents, at this stage can decline.

Those social workers would answer to a LEO in charge of managing minors. They then decide what courses of action should be looked at in the future.

At Stage TWO (which would happen if the child gets into trouble within 90 days of the first intervention) or has two more offenses within the calendar year, the IQ test and drug test become mandatory. If the parents are reluctant, the child is removed and put into foster care and the intervention goes further.

At Stage TWO, you are evaluating the child and now the parents become a focal point, especially if they are uncooperative. You want to do a criminal background check on the parents, determine their work situation, and if both parents are in the home.

As you can see, you keep progressing with the interventions until you isolate the problem. Is the problem the child OR is it the parents? Is it lack of supervision OR is it abuse by the parents and / or living in an atmosphere of addiction and / or neglect? You turn schools into places for parenting classes in the school's after hours; you use the school for an after hours group therapy meeting spot for children (and maybe for the parents.) This is not an all inclusive post because it is very in depth, but at the end of the day, you identify the REAL problem, the root, the source of the problem and begin treating it with education, therapy, and even taking children out of homes when necessary. Work with churches and non-profits to get mentors and big brothers / sisters for those in single parent family homes. And, yes, it's going to take holding social workers to higher standards and accountability than we have in the past.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

No you cannot trust the government to do their job. That is why you have that missing ingredient added: ACCOUNTABILITY.
I think you think inside the box too much and aren't willing to try something that would work.
WHY YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE
You tend to believe most strongly that which you hear first
If you change, it will be most likely to that which you hear repeated many times
You tend to believe that which you WANT to believe or that which fits your preconceived ideas or notions
Last, humans are least likely to believe that which is logical and makes sense... ESPECIALLY if it contradicts that which they hear most

Ok, so let's see...according to you all we need to do is ask for Government Accountability and problem solved?
I'm sorry....you're just being hilarious today. I live in reality.

If thinking government accountability is your idea of the "best path to be safe and secure", then I'm at a loss.
If that's not thinking inside your proverbial "box" nothing is.

You totally ignore that there are political parties at work with agendas.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yes, I know about Fort Sumpter where the gun nuts of the day attacked a government fort and started the civil war. That didn't work out too well for them even in those times. What do you think a bunch of idiot gun nuts with rifles would be able to do against today's military? You're a childish idiot wanting to play army. I'm not against taking people's guns except in cases like yours where you should have yours replaced with paint ball guns so you could play army all you want.

You completely missed the point....
You said "It has never happened"....you were wrong.

In fact, you're so wrong across the board you don't even realize the fool you're making of yourself.

I think thinking men would agree the Founding Fathers were several grades above you in IQ. They provided for the right to bear arms. "Gun Nuts" to you, while you sit here in the nation they formed enjoying the framework for freedom THEY gave you, so you can diss and disrespect all the sacrifices made so that you can mock them.

Do you have a pistol? That would make you a "gun nut" too btw.

You are truly stupid. Slavery is abhorrent to all ethical and moral belief, and nobody in this country ever had the right to own another human being as if he were property, even though it was legal for a time. Criminals attacked a government installation more than 150 years ago because our government declared the vile act of slavery would end. Those attackers weren't defending their rights. They had no more right to own people than a mass shooter has the right to shoot up a school. The attack at Fort Sumpter did happen, but it had nothing to do with protecting anyone's rights from the government. The revolutionary war was a war against an oppressive government. The civil war was the act of traitors attacking our country. Only a fool wouldn't see that difference.

Owning guns doesn't make anybody a gun nut. Insisting that our country doesn't have the right to regulate ownership and use of guns for the safety of it's citizens is what makes you a gun nut. You idiots seem to think that owning a gun puts that person on your side when more than 90% of the country favors universal background checks. You are truly an idiot

 

[Porter Rockwell]

No you cannot trust the government to do their job. That is why you have that missing ingredient added: ACCOUNTABILITY.
I think you think inside the box too much and aren't willing to try something that would work.
WHY YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE
You tend to believe most strongly that which you hear first
If you change, it will be most likely to that which you hear repeated many times
You tend to believe that which you WANT to believe or that which fits your preconceived ideas or notions
Last, humans are least likely to believe that which is logical and makes sense... ESPECIALLY if it contradicts that which they hear most

Ok, so let's see...according to you all we need to do is ask for Government Accountability and problem solved?
I'm sorry....you're just being hilarious today. I live in reality.

If thinking government accountability is your idea of the "best path to be safe and secure", then I'm at a loss.
If that's not thinking inside your proverbial "box" nothing is.

You totally ignore that there are political parties at work with agendas.

If that was intended to be a rational criticism of a plan I worked over 30 years developing and have not even begun to highlight here, then you have just proven why I didn't waste the bandwidth to post the synopsis of the whole thing.

I've already told you once that the solution won't fit on a bumper sticker. Over the course of years of working with cops, social workers, attorneys, judges, politicians, the media, and people far numerous than I can count, the entire program addresses each group and their failings along with what must be done in order to get their cooperation.

If that is all you got out of ten paragraphs, then save your criticisms. They are worthless, uninformed, and you didn't even have enough common sense to ASK a freaking question before leaping into a bumper sticker sized solution. BTW, what you suggested wasn't even part of the solution, but part of the problem that we have to resolve.

 

[westwall]

Every time some nut job Leftist goes out and shoots up a school, or gathering...the Left jump on the "Take Away The Guns" bandwagon screaming from their morally superior high ground that only they have the final solution.

They ALWAYS blame gun violence on THE GUN itself. Completely omitting the horrendous leftist policies that are creating a generation of savages.

While they scream about the lives lost, they couldn't care less about that. Their power lies in the control they gain over others by any means necessary and available.

Therefore, in their minds, civilians must be disarmed.

So how many "Mass shootings" are the magic number required to get it done? 2 per year? 1 pr month?

Here's my point.....THERE IS NO NUMBER THAT WILL EVER JUSTIFY IT.

The 2nd Amendment was never about Personal Safety....it is about National Safety. The ability of a population to resist government tyranny.

The price of freedom was never "Free". And the Cost of giving in to tyrants that want to disarm a population is higher than any number of isolated incidences of left leaning madmen who go on sporadic shooting sprees.

The very Day "good men" lose the fight to be armed, is the same day true tyranny will raise it's ugly head and devour them.

None. Because the eventual outcome of a disarmed population is mass murder that will be in the millions. That is the eventual outcome of every statist political faction.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Yes, I know about Fort Sumpter where the gun nuts of the day attacked a government fort and started the civil war. That didn't work out too well for them even in those times. What do you think a bunch of idiot gun nuts with rifles would be able to do against today's military? You're a childish idiot wanting to play army. I'm not against taking people's guns except in cases like yours where you should have yours replaced with paint ball guns so you could play army all you want.

You completely missed the point....
You said "It has never happened"....you were wrong.

In fact, you're so wrong across the board you don't even realize the fool you're making of yourself.

I think thinking men would agree the Founding Fathers were several grades above you in IQ. They provided for the right to bear arms. "Gun Nuts" to you, while you sit here in the nation they formed enjoying the framework for freedom THEY gave you, so you can diss and disrespect all the sacrifices made so that you can mock them.

Do you have a pistol? That would make you a "gun nut" too btw.

You are truly stupid. Slavery is abhorrent to all ethical and moral belief, and nobody in this country ever had the right to own another human being as if he were property, even though it was legal for a time. Criminals attacked a government installation more than 150 years ago because our government declared the vile act of slavery would end. Those attackers weren't defending their rights. They had no more right to own people than a mass shooter has the right to shoot up a school. The attack at Fort Sumpter did happen, but it had nothing to do with protecting anyone's rights from the government. The revolutionary war was a war against an oppressive government. The civil war was the act of traitors attacking our country. Only a fool wouldn't see that difference.

Owning guns doesn't make anybody a gun nut. Insisting that our country doesn't have the right to regulate ownership and use of guns for the safety of it's citizens is what makes you a gun nut. You idiots seem to think that owning a gun puts that person on your side when more than 90% of the country favors universal background checks. You are truly an idiot

Universal background checks are worthless, unnecessary, and unconstitutional. They are a waste of money.... and even the last mass shooter legally obtained his weapon.

Universal background checks are the precursor to registration which is the precursor to confiscation. Without the registration of private owned firearms, there is no way to enforce a universal background check. Once gun owners understand that, I doubt that any of them would support a background check.

The background check is a clear and unequivocal violation of the Fourth Amendment. Apply a background check to any of the other Rights you have and you'll see it's nothing more than a tool of control. The best and most effective way to insure guns don't end up in the hands of the wrong people is to make sure that the bodies of those wrong hands are in prisons, jails, mental health facilities, or under the care and supervision of someone who can watch them all the time.

 

[BULLDOG]

Do you really believe someone will try to take your and my guns, or are you just repeating silly crap?

Commie shills advocate for it on sites like these all day, every day in some cases.

Just look at Maine ..person over there, and that one is mild.

You use the word commie as a catch all for anyone you don't like, don't you?
Idiots here advocate for civil war every day, but that doesn't mean I believe it will happen. That wasn't the question anyway. Do you think somebody will come to take your guns or mine?

 

[Marion Morrison]

Do you really believe someone will try to take your and my guns, or are you just repeating silly crap?

Commie shills advocate for it on sites like these all day, every day in some cases.

Just look at Maine ..person over there, and that one is mild.

You use the word commie as a catch all for anyone you don't like, don't you?
Idiots here advocate for civil war every day, but that doesn't mean I believe it will happen. That wasn't the question anyway. Do you think somebody will come to take your guns or mine?

Yes. It's already happened in New Orleans and California.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yes, I know about Fort Sumpter where the gun nuts of the day attacked a government fort and started the civil war. That didn't work out too well for them even in those times. What do you think a bunch of idiot gun nuts with rifles would be able to do against today's military? You're a childish idiot wanting to play army. I'm not against taking people's guns except in cases like yours where you should have yours replaced with paint ball guns so you could play army all you want.

You completely missed the point....
You said "It has never happened"....you were wrong.

In fact, you're so wrong across the board you don't even realize the fool you're making of yourself.

I think thinking men would agree the Founding Fathers were several grades above you in IQ. They provided for the right to bear arms. "Gun Nuts" to you, while you sit here in the nation they formed enjoying the framework for freedom THEY gave you, so you can diss and disrespect all the sacrifices made so that you can mock them.

Do you have a pistol? That would make you a "gun nut" too btw.

You are truly stupid. Slavery is abhorrent to all ethical and moral belief, and nobody in this country ever had the right to own another human being as if he were property, even though it was legal for a time. Criminals attacked a government installation more than 150 years ago because our government declared the vile act of slavery would end. Those attackers weren't defending their rights. They had no more right to own people than a mass shooter has the right to shoot up a school. The attack at Fort Sumpter did happen, but it had nothing to do with protecting anyone's rights from the government. The revolutionary war was a war against an oppressive government. The civil war was the act of traitors attacking our country. Only a fool wouldn't see that difference.

Owning guns doesn't make anybody a gun nut. Insisting that our country doesn't have the right to regulate ownership and use of guns for the safety of it's citizens is what makes you a gun nut. You idiots seem to think that owning a gun puts that person on your side when more than 90% of the country favors universal background checks. You are truly an idiot

Universal background checks are worthless, unnecessary, and unconstitutional. They are a waste of money.... and even the last mass shooter legally obtained his weapon.

Universal background checks are the precursor to registration which is the precursor to confiscation. Without the registration of private owned firearms, there is no way to enforce a universal background check. Once gun owners understand that, I doubt that any of them would support a background check.

The background check is a clear and unequivocal violation of the Fourth Amendment. Apply a background check to any of the other Rights you have and you'll see it's nothing more than a tool of control. The best and most effective way to insure guns don't end up in the hands of the wrong people is to make sure that the bodies of those wrong hands are in prisons, jails, mental health facilities, or under the care and supervision of someone who can watch them all the time.

Yes, I know the gun nut rant about universal background checks as well as you do. More than 90% of the country wants them, and that includes crazy right wingers and gun nuts too.

 

[westwall]

Yes, I know about Fort Sumpter where the gun nuts of the day attacked a government fort and started the civil war. That didn't work out too well for them even in those times. What do you think a bunch of idiot gun nuts with rifles would be able to do against today's military? You're a childish idiot wanting to play army. I'm not against taking people's guns except in cases like yours where you should have yours replaced with paint ball guns so you could play army all you want.

You completely missed the point....
You said "It has never happened"....you were wrong.

In fact, you're so wrong across the board you don't even realize the fool you're making of yourself.

I think thinking men would agree the Founding Fathers were several grades above you in IQ. They provided for the right to bear arms. "Gun Nuts" to you, while you sit here in the nation they formed enjoying the framework for freedom THEY gave you, so you can diss and disrespect all the sacrifices made so that you can mock them.

Do you have a pistol? That would make you a "gun nut" too btw.

You are truly stupid. Slavery is abhorrent to all ethical and moral belief, and nobody in this country ever had the right to own another human being as if he were property, even though it was legal for a time. Criminals attacked a government installation more than 150 years ago because our government declared the vile act of slavery would end. Those attackers weren't defending their rights. They had no more right to own people than a mass shooter has the right to shoot up a school. The attack at Fort Sumpter did happen, but it had nothing to do with protecting anyone's rights from the government. The revolutionary war was a war against an oppressive government. The civil war was the act of traitors attacking our country. Only a fool wouldn't see that difference.

Owning guns doesn't make anybody a gun nut. Insisting that our country doesn't have the right to regulate ownership and use of guns for the safety of it's citizens is what makes you a gun nut. You idiots seem to think that owning a gun puts that person on your side when more than 90% of the country favors universal background checks. You are truly an idiot

Universal background checks are worthless, unnecessary, and unconstitutional. They are a waste of money.... and even the last mass shooter legally obtained his weapon.

Universal background checks are the precursor to registration which is the precursor to confiscation. Without the registration of private owned firearms, there is no way to enforce a universal background check. Once gun owners understand that, I doubt that any of them would support a background check.

The background check is a clear and unequivocal violation of the Fourth Amendment. Apply a background check to any of the other Rights you have and you'll see it's nothing more than a tool of control. The best and most effective way to insure guns don't end up in the hands of the wrong people is to make sure that the bodies of those wrong hands are in prisons, jails, mental health facilities, or under the care and supervision of someone who can watch them all the time.

Yes, I know the gun nut rant about universal background checks as well as you do. More than 90% of the country wants them, and that includes crazy right wingers and gun nuts too.

Yeah, no, they don't. This is just another one of your long list of fake polls that culminated in trump getting elected.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Yes, I know about Fort Sumpter where the gun nuts of the day attacked a government fort and started the civil war. That didn't work out too well for them even in those times. What do you think a bunch of idiot gun nuts with rifles would be able to do against today's military? You're a childish idiot wanting to play army. I'm not against taking people's guns except in cases like yours where you should have yours replaced with paint ball guns so you could play army all you want.

You completely missed the point....
You said "It has never happened"....you were wrong.

In fact, you're so wrong across the board you don't even realize the fool you're making of yourself.

I think thinking men would agree the Founding Fathers were several grades above you in IQ. They provided for the right to bear arms. "Gun Nuts" to you, while you sit here in the nation they formed enjoying the framework for freedom THEY gave you, so you can diss and disrespect all the sacrifices made so that you can mock them.

Do you have a pistol? That would make you a "gun nut" too btw.

You are truly stupid. Slavery is abhorrent to all ethical and moral belief, and nobody in this country ever had the right to own another human being as if he were property, even though it was legal for a time. Criminals attacked a government installation more than 150 years ago because our government declared the vile act of slavery would end. Those attackers weren't defending their rights. They had no more right to own people than a mass shooter has the right to shoot up a school. The attack at Fort Sumpter did happen, but it had nothing to do with protecting anyone's rights from the government. The revolutionary war was a war against an oppressive government. The civil war was the act of traitors attacking our country. Only a fool wouldn't see that difference.

Owning guns doesn't make anybody a gun nut. Insisting that our country doesn't have the right to regulate ownership and use of guns for the safety of it's citizens is what makes you a gun nut. You idiots seem to think that owning a gun puts that person on your side when more than 90% of the country favors universal background checks. You are truly an idiot

Universal background checks are worthless, unnecessary, and unconstitutional. They are a waste of money.... and even the last mass shooter legally obtained his weapon.

Universal background checks are the precursor to registration which is the precursor to confiscation. Without the registration of private owned firearms, there is no way to enforce a universal background check. Once gun owners understand that, I doubt that any of them would support a background check.

The background check is a clear and unequivocal violation of the Fourth Amendment. Apply a background check to any of the other Rights you have and you'll see it's nothing more than a tool of control. The best and most effective way to insure guns don't end up in the hands of the wrong people is to make sure that the bodies of those wrong hands are in prisons, jails, mental health facilities, or under the care and supervision of someone who can watch them all the time.

Yes, I know the gun nut rant about universal background checks as well as you do. More than 90% of the country wants them, and that includes crazy right wingers and gun nuts too.

Brought to you by the same pollsters that said Hillary had a 97% chance to win.

 

[BULLDOG]

Do you really believe someone will try to take your and my guns, or are you just repeating silly crap?

Commie shills advocate for it on sites like these all day, every day in some cases.

Just look at Maine ..person over there, and that one is mild.

You use the word commie as a catch all for anyone you don't like, don't you?
Idiots here advocate for civil war every day, but that doesn't mean I believe it will happen. That wasn't the question anyway. Do you think somebody will come to take your guns or mine?

Yes. It's already happened in New Orleans and California.

Link?