Woman Who Falsely Cried Rape Convicted of Manslaughter

[Dogger]

. . .
If the person has been diagnosed with some kind of mental disability, they will not be allowed to acquire a gun.
. . .

The families of 32 dead VA Tech victims might disagree with that. Cho had been diagnosed and adjudicated.

Va. Tech Killer Ruled Mentally Ill by Court; Let Go After Hospital Visit

 

[AllieBaba]

Crazy people get guns all the time. As I said, if that's the only reason for gun control, people are going to be shocked and dismayed when they realize how ineffective sanctions are against the mentally ill and criminal.

I bet I could walk down to the store and come back with a gun, if I wanted to spend the $$ on it. And I live in a little town. I imagine it's even easier (though possibly more dangerous) in a city. And criminals are good at having "fronts" buy their weapons for them. Like you pay a wino to get your booze, you can pay a wino or young kid without a record to buy a gun for you.

 

[BrianH]

The families of 32 dead VA Tech victims might disagree with that. Cho had been diagnosed and adjudicated.

Va. Tech Killer Ruled Mentally Ill by Court; Let Go After Hospital Visit

Well, then Virginia needs to do better with it's gun laws.

 

[BrianH]

Crazy people get guns all the time. As I said, if that's the only reason for gun control, people are going to be shocked and dismayed when they realize how ineffective sanctions are against the mentally ill and criminal.

I bet I could walk down to the store and come back with a gun, if I wanted to spend the $$ on it. And I live in a little town. I imagine it's even easier (though possibly more dangerous) in a city. And criminals are good at having "fronts" buy their weapons for them. Like you pay a wino to get your booze, you can pay a wino or young kid without a record to buy a gun for you.

Well then the place you're getting you're gun from needs to do a better job. Laws are in place to keep you from doing so via someone else.
It is illegal to buy a gun for someone else in Texas. Unless they are buying it as a gift. I don't know how many people I've turned down because they said, "I'm here buying a gun for my dad." And I say, "Are you buying it as a gift?" And they say, "No, I'm just picking it up for him." That's where I say, "Sorry, I can't sell you this firearm."

It's not gun laws that fail, it's people failing to enforce them based on their greed. ($$$$).

And as far as YOU having to get someone to buy a gun, are you admitting to us all that you are legally insane???

 

[BrianH]

The families of 32 dead VA Tech victims might disagree with that. Cho had been diagnosed and adjudicated.

Va. Tech Killer Ruled Mentally Ill by Court; Let Go After Hospital Visit

I feel for this situation, but under your logic, let's punish millions of law-abiding citizens for a couple of crazy people. Under this logic, let's outlaw automobiles because of the numerous drunk drivers that kill people in car accidents.

 

[AllieBaba]

Well then the place you're getting you're gun from needs to do a better job. Laws are in place to keep you from doing so via someone else.
It is illegal to buy a gun for someone else in Texas. Unless they are buying it as a gift. I don't know how many people I've turned down because they said, "I'm here buying a gun for my dad." And I say, "Are you buying it as a gift?" And they say, "No, I'm just picking it up for him." That's where I say, "Sorry, I can't sell you this firearm."

It's not gun laws that fail, it's people failing to enforce them based on their greed. ($$$$).

And as far as YOU having to get someone to buy a gun, are you admitting to us all that you are legally insane???

Not all criminals are as stupid as the ones you've apparently dealt with.

 

[Dogger]

I feel for this situation, but under your logic, let's punish millions of law-abiding citizens for a couple of crazy people. Under this logic, let's outlaw automobiles because of the numerous drunk drivers that kill people in car accidents.

That's not my logic; you're putting words in my mouth.

I'm not saying we should outlaw guns, or cars. I'm saying we should try to limit gun ownership to people who are responsible. We do that with cars, and we don't give up just because we fail on occasion. Our efforts regarding guns are only a little more effective than doing nothing at all.

Gun laws have been influenced by the gun lobby, and they are designed to fail.

 

[Yurt]

That's not my logic; you're putting words in my mouth.

I'm not saying we should outlaw guns, or cars. I'm saying we should try to limit gun ownership to people who are responsible. We do that with cars, and we don't give up just because we fail on occasion. Our efforts regarding guns are only a little more effective than doing nothing at all.

Gun laws have been influenced by the gun lobby, and they are designed to fail.

i now remember it was you who said it was not a legal test....so you propose your "legal" test that you don't think is a legal test....you want a test that can predict who has low impulse control... while you are at it, why don't you see if you can formulate a computer program that can predict who will commit a murder before the murder happens, or, you can simply copy steven spielberg's script from minority report so that your utopian world can live on in coffee shops....

i find it amusing that you have ignored the fact that your test is a "legal" test due to the state actors. i quickly reviewed the thread, and i see two posts (only checked mine, maybe more) that you ignored. are you scared? oh wait, you don't suffer fools lightly....right....

 

[Yurt]

That's not my logic; you're putting words in my mouth.

I'm not saying we should outlaw guns, or cars. I'm saying we should try to limit gun ownership to people who are responsible. We do that with cars, and we don't give up just because we fail on occasion. Our efforts regarding guns are only a little more effective than doing nothing at all.

Gun laws have been influenced by the gun lobby, and they are designed to fail.

that is utter bullshit, the brady bill...

 

[Dogger]

that is utter bullshit, the brady bill...

Since you try to read into my posts things I never said or fairly implied, you are in effect asking me to defend things I never said.

That is as big a waste of time as you are.

 

[Yurt]

Since you try to read into my posts things I never said or fairly implied, you are in effect asking me to defend things I never said.

That is as big a waste of time as you are.

dude, you're weaker than i thought. as an attorney (as some say) i actually expected good debates, not toddler hands over the ears..lalalalaaa, stuff.

Gun laws have been influenced by the gun lobby,

your words. have a problem with that? what exactly did I "read into" that you did not say?


edit: you still won't respond to the legal test...LOL, because it is a legal test

 

[BrianH]

That's not my logic; you're putting words in my mouth.

I'm not saying we should outlaw guns, or cars. I'm saying we should try to limit gun ownership to people who are responsible. We do that with cars, and we don't give up just because we fail on occasion. Our efforts regarding guns are only a little more effective than doing nothing at all.

Gun laws have been influenced by the gun lobby, and they are designed to fail.

My apologies. It was fairly difficult to see you're position. Now that you've come out and said exactly what it is, I see your point. I may not necessarily agree with it, but understand it.

There is no way to do what you suggest without infringing on people's liberty. The gun laws that are in place...at least in Texas are designed to be strict, however, when a gun business driven by money does little to enforce law, that's where the problems come in. The law is fine. When purchasing a firearm, you fill out federal paperwork. The seller is authorized to analyze this paperwork. If you answer Yes or No to the wrong question (just one) the sale is void. If the seller feels uncomfortable selling a firearm to someone (for any reason at all) he/she has the right to refuse to sell it. If the sale eventually is intended to take place, the seller has to call the NICS (FBI) national background check. And then it's up to them as to whether or not a person can own a gun. I've turned people away for accidently answering the Yes or No to a question by accident...because you can't be too careful.

The problem is money hungry firearm salesmen (not all, but their are some). The difference between driving and firearms is that the Constitution doesn't garauntee you're right to drive. The Constitution does garauntee the right to own a firearm.

 

[Yurt]

My apologies. It was fairly difficult to see you're position. Now that you've come out and said exactly what it is, I see your point. I may not necessarily agree with it, but understand it.

There is no way to do what you suggest without infringing on people's liberty. The gun laws that are in place...at least in Texas are designed to be strict, however, when a gun business driven by money does little to enforce law, that's where the problems come in. The law is fine. When purchasing a firearm, you fill out federal paperwork. The seller is authorized to analyze this paperwork. If you answer Yes or No to the wrong question (just one) the sale is void. If the seller feels uncomfortable selling a firearm to someone (for any reason at all) he/she has the right to refuse to sell it. If the sale eventually is intended to take place, the seller has to call the NICS (FBI) national background check. And then it's up to them as to whether or not a person can own a gun. I've turned people away for accidently answering the Yes or No to a question by accident...because you can't be too careful.

The problem is money hungry firearm salesmen (not all, but their are some). The difference between driving and firearms is that the Constitution doesn't garauntee you're right to drive. The Constitution does garauntee the right to own a firearm.

the constitution guarantees...... the right to bear ARMS. not "firearm"....

 

[Dogger]

The difference between driving and firearms is that the Constitution doesn't garauntee you're right to drive. The Constitution does garauntee the right to own a firearm.

First, I don't subscribe to the idea that people only have those rights listed in the Bill of Rights. But that's another thread.

And once again, the 2d Amendment is not absolute. Even the 1st Amendment, which uses absolute phrasing, has been interpreted to have exceptions.

Do you agree that there are valid exceptions, such as bans on automatic weapons, cannons, grenades, missles, sawed-off shotguns and bazookas? If the purpose is to protect my ability to join a militia, why can't I purchase my own Apache helicopter? And if the 2d Amendment does not invalidate those restrictions, why should it invalidate rules that ensure people who own guns are properly trained in their use?

 

[Dogger]

Why do all of the conservatives disappear when I ask a difficult question?

 

[Glori.B]

Why do all of the conservatives disappear when I ask a difficult question?

because you're soooo good looking...?

 

[Yurt]

Why do all of the conservatives disappear when I ask a difficult question?

false premise for a stupid question....further, it is you who runs from questions you don't like and you dismiss them as "moronic" so you do not have to justify why you won't answer questions. if you actually explained why the question is moronic, you would have some respect, instead, you blithely dismiss and that makes you a poser. any five year old can say:

you're stupid...nuh, uh...no...

that is because five year old children have not developed the ability to form complete rational arguments as to why something is wrong, so the simple - nuh, uh - works for them, because they know they 'must' be right.

 

[cbi0090]

First, I don't subscribe to the idea that people only have those rights listed in the Bill of Rights. But that's another thread.

And once again, the 2d Amendment is not absolute. Even the 1st Amendment, which uses absolute phrasing, has been interpreted to have exceptions.

Do you agree that there are valid exceptions, such as bans on automatic weapons, cannons, grenades, missles, sawed-off shotguns and bazookas? If the purpose is to protect my ability to join a militia, why can't I purchase my own Apache helicopter? And if the 2d Amendment does not invalidate those restrictions, why should it invalidate rules that ensure people who own guns are properly trained in their use?

Didn't the guy who founded Oracle buy a Russian fighter jet? There is going to be an on-going arguement over this issue because, frankly, the right to bear arms is more a question of keeping power in the hands of the people instead of the government. Only a couple of hours away from you there are places where only the government and it's military have guns. I suggest you visit one of those places and look at their history of junta's and ever changing governments and ask why it is that the common person gets screwed continually there.
After we kicked out Noriega I spent a year in Panama assessing their transportation infrastructure. It was easy to see how that little pissant colonel could take over and rob that country blind when you realize that it was only his illiterate jungle boys who carried around the guns. He'd place them in villages where they had no ties, no relatives, with an automatic weapon and everyone had to do what they said. They had to give him food, shelter, and any woman he wanted and they couldn't do a thing about it. One person with a small handgun could have tipped the balance of power, but they did not exist. That is the majority of the world we live in. Not the Disney land we live in here in the U.S.

 

[BrianH]

First, I don't subscribe to the idea that people only have those rights listed in the Bill of Rights. But that's another thread.

And once again, the 2d Amendment is not absolute. Even the 1st Amendment, which uses absolute phrasing, has been interpreted to have exceptions.

Do you agree that there are valid exceptions, such as bans on automatic weapons, cannons, grenades, missles, sawed-off shotguns and bazookas? If the purpose is to protect my ability to join a militia, why can't I purchase my own Apache helicopter? And if the 2d Amendment does not invalidate those restrictions, why should it invalidate rules that ensure people who own guns are properly trained in their use?

I never said that you only have the rights listed in the Bill of rights. Well, IMO the Constitution may give us the right to bear arms, but it does not forbid the government from regulating them.

If there's one thing anyone has ever learned about militias, they don't require a signature and a organized rank. There are militias all over the world that pop up and do their thing, with no previous organization. The owning of firearms by civilians ensures the eventual formation of a militia in a time of war.

 

[BrianH]

the constitution guarantees...... the right to bear ARMS. not "firearm"....

You you're saying we have the right to carry around our own Arms? SO, a firearm is not considered an "arm"? What dictionary are you reading?
"Arm" is a variable and vague term. Considering a fire-ARM is considered a ARM, it is covered under this amenment.