Geeto67 Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Let's be honest with ourselves. That ain't your kid. Your wife keeps telling me it is. But you are probably right, it could be anybody in the neighborhood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 all you "responsible owners" aren't doing enough of a good job self policing so it's time to intervene.what's this self policing you're speaking about? I see tens of millions of guns in the marketplace and in the hands of tens of millions of people and a few guns in the hands of a few bad people each year causing issues. what is is as a resposnible gun owner you want me or others to do? the situation in florida has about as many red flags raised and pictures drawn pointing to this kid and yet no one in law enforcement connected the dots. IMO one of the background check updates that needs to occur is to have school records for say the past xx number of years (most applicable to buyers under say age 24, be included. I mean if he legitimally qualified to a buy a gun that's one thing, but had he been flagged for having been expelled from school for violence perhaps that flag could be used to decline him. Add to that you have a young man who has a history like him of trouble....I mean how many times were the police called to his location for various reasons? Again, to me that's a red flag that perhaps should be noted in a background check. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 IMO one of the background check updates that needs to occur is to have school records for say the past xx number of years (most applicable to buyers under say age 24, be included. I mean if he legitimally qualified to a buy a gun that's one thing, but had he been flagged for having been expelled from school for violence perhaps that flag could be used to decline him. Add to that you have a young man who has a history like him of trouble....I mean how many times were the police called to his location for various reasons? Again, to me that's a red flag that perhaps should be noted in a background check. Pretty sure school disciplinary issues aren't a bar for military service. So someone with this kid's "record" could sign up to take up arms and die for his country, but you want to deny him his guaranteed 2nd amendment rights as a US citizen? On the say-so of a bunch of liberal educators at that? And without due process protections guaranteed by all of them other amendments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BStowers023 Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Pretty sure school disciplinary issues aren't a bar for military service. So someone with this kid's "record" could sign up to take up arms and die for his country, but you want to deny him his guaranteed 2nd amendment rights as a US citizen? On the say-so of a bunch of liberal educators at that? And without due process protections guaranteed by all of them other amendments? So you are okay with someone like Nikolas Cruz being able to legally obtain a gun? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 So you are okay with someone like Nikolas Cruz being able to legally obtain a gun? Shouldn't people like him have the same rights as any other American to defend themselves from criminals, government tyrants, and spree shooters? Are you OK with liberal teachers taking away those rights because someone bit a pop tart into a gun shape or some other bullshit accusation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Pretty sure school disciplinary issues aren't a bar for military service. So someone with this kid's "record" could sign up to take up arms and die for his country, but you want to deny him his guaranteed 2nd amendment rights as a US citizen? Yes. If someone is a threat enough to get kicked out of school for violence and/or have a disruptive enough of a life to have law enforcement show up as many times as this turd did then I support keeping them from having a firearm. Just because someone can go serve over seas doesn't give them a hall-pass to carry or buy a gun and walk among free society. There's more to it than just our willingness to put them in the military where their behaviors are far far more regulated and disciplined than in society here state-side. If he goes on to serve and come back from deployment without issue, perhaps with a record of "improvement" then that service will go on record and thus work in favor. We deny people the right to their 2nd amendment if they commit a felony because they are a threat to society so why not do the same here? It wouldn't be on the say-so of anyone it would be based on the fact that their own actions got them booted from school due to violence. That's on the person not the educators. If they want due-process, that's simple, put a process in place if they wish to debate the matter. Details of such can be worked out pretty easily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Shouldn't people like him have the same rights as any other American to defend themselves from criminals, government tyrants, and spree shooters? They have that right but when people are disruptive to society and proving themselves to be violent in such a way that they are booted from school, etc. then they can lose their right to own a gun. We can further define for how long. IMO there are a lot of cases where we need to restrict knuckleheads of the world from being allowed to participate as if they aren't knuckleheads. Are you OK with liberal teachers taking away those rights because someone bit a pop tart into a gun shape or some other bullshit accusation?Let's be real here, he was booted from school for specific types of behavior that we can clearly define. The above is an example of something that perhaps wouldn't preclude one from owning a gun. You're smart and you know what I mean. Just note your sarcasm if I'm missing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BStowers023 Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Shouldn't people like him have the same rights as any other American to defend themselves from criminals, government tyrants, and spree shooters? Are you OK with liberal teachers taking away those rights because someone bit a pop tart into a gun shape or some other bullshit accusation? Greg with the ole bait and switch. Okay, I'll play. So are liberal teachers the only ones who called the police on him? And for what? Is it that cut and dry for you? It's not for me. Seems to me this kid had a lot more issues than biting a pop tart into a gun shape and there seems to be overwhelming evidence to support it. We live in an age where just about everything we do or say is recorded and filed away somewhere. This happens whether we like it or not. Why not use it to our advantage? Can we incorporate that into the background check system even if it takes longer than 20 minutes to run? I think we can come to an agreement here and say that's reasonable? I'm okay with waiting a week or so for my background check to clear if it could help prevent kids like Nikolas from legally obtaining a weapon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Greg with the ole bait and switch. Okay, I'll play. So are liberal teachers the only ones who called the police on him? And for what? Is it that cut and dry for you? It's not for me. Seems to me this kid had a lot more issues than biting a pop tart into a gun shape and there seems to be overwhelming evidence to support it. Is that all it takes in your plan? Someone calling the police on someone else? No due process? You and I can look at this kid's history and come to a conclusion, but we're only getting one side of the story. Does he get to present his side before you take away his rights? Does he get a lawyer? Is there a jury? These are questions that you need to have answers for before you start bringing the power of the government to bear on its citizens. We live in an age where just about everything we do or say is recorded and filed away somewhere. This happens whether we like it or not. Why not use it to our advantage? Can we incorporate that into the background check system even if it takes longer than 20 minutes to run? I think we can come to an agreement here and say that's reasonable? I'm okay with waiting a week or so for my background check to clear if it could help prevent kids like Nikolas from legally obtaining a weapon. I've been told repeatedly that gun restrictions don't matter because criminals will just ignore them, they can always find a way to get a gun anyway. All your plan is going to do is limit the rights of the law abiding citizens who might have uncorroborated accusations in their background. Does that sound fair to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Is that all it takes in your plan? Someone calling the police on someone else? No due process? You and I can look at this kid's history and come to a conclusion, but we're only getting one side of the story. Does he get to present his side before you take away his rights? Does he get a lawyer? Is there a jury? These are questions that you need to have answers for before you start bringing the power of the government to bear on its citizens. I've been told repeatedly that gun restrictions don't matter because criminals will just ignore them, they can always find a way to get a gun anyway. All your plan is going to do is limit the rights of the law abiding citizens who might have uncorroborated accusations in their background. Does that sound fair to you? Greg you are wasting your time, he doesn't understand due process in the slightest. To him if a cop visits you, you are as good as guilty. He doesn't even see the amazing overreach and invasion of personal liberty he is advocating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BStowers023 Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Is that all it takes in your plan? Someone calling the police on someone else? No due process? You and I can look at this kid's history and come to a conclusion, but we're only getting one side of the story. Does he get to present his side before you take away his rights? Does he get a lawyer? Is there a jury? These are questions that you need to have answers for before you start bringing the power of the government to bear on its citizens. Great questions, Greg. I don't have all of the answers, but I bet we could start with attempting to find a solution for this as this kid clearly had slipped through the cracks. Maybe the FBI could put him on a "watch" list and if he attempts to purchase a gun, he will have to jump through a few extra hoops to get it, maybe a psych eval is one of them. Is it perfect, no but it's a start. I've been told repeatedly that gun restrictions don't matter because criminals will just ignore them, they can always find a way to get a gun anyway. All your plan is going to do is limit the rights of the law abiding citizens who might have uncorroborated accusations in their background. Does that sound fair to you? Are you changing your stance on gun control or are you just playing devil's advocate because you will argue with anything I say no matter what. Greg you are wasting your time, he doesn't understand due process in the slightest. To him if a cop visits you, you are as good as guilty. He doesn't even see the amazing overreach and invasion of personal liberty he is advocating. I'm advocating for personal liberty? Are you living in a fucking shoe box? Personal liberty barely exists. Hell, if it were up to me EVERYTHING you wanted to be private would be private but that's not the world we live in. At this point the only way to take back our privacy would be to overthrow the Government which isn't reasonable. I'm trying to level with you guys here but of course you both pull the old bait and switch just to argue. Kerry, do you think Nikolas Cruz should have been able to legally purchase that AR-15? Greg thinks so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Great questions, Greg. I don't have all of the answers, but I bet we could start with attempting to find a solution for this as this kid clearly had slipped through the cracks. Maybe the FBI could put him on a "watch" list and if he attempts to purchase a gun, he will have to jump through a few extra hoops to get it, maybe a psych eval is one of them. Is it perfect, no but it's a start. Secret government watch lists that citizens can get put on without due process? Go run that by your libertarian buddies, see how long it takes them to kick you out of the club. Are you changing your stance on gun control or are you just playing devil's advocate because you will argue with anything I say no matter what. Do tell, what is my stance on gun control? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BStowers023 Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Secret government watch lists that citizens can get put on without due process? Go run that by your libertarian buddies, see how long it takes them to kick you out of the club. It's happening anyways? Should we try to overthrow the Government? I'm down. Let's take our freedom back! Do tell, what is my stance on gun control? Voluntary disarmament by an American population that no longer sees any value in being armed. Your stance is about as retarded as you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 It's happening anyways? Should we try to overthrow the Government? I'm down. Let's take our freedom back! No, I prefer democracy to armed resistance. You have fun with that. Your stance is about as retarded as you are. People choosing to get rid of their guns is a form of "gun control?" OK then, I wasn't aware of that definition. In any case, how is it inconsistent to want people to voluntarily disarm but not want the government to force them to without due process? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 I'm advocating for personal liberty? No Quite the opposite, the things you talk about go far beyond the current boundaries, and you don't seem to have any problem with this. You have more rights than you think, but you need to know about them and most Americans don't, or are cynical to the point where they convince themselves they don't when they do. Are you living in a fucking shoe box? Personal liberty barely exists. Hell, if it were up to me EVERYTHING you wanted to be private would be private but that's not the world we live in. There is still that option. People do it, it requires you to remove parts of yourself from society. A lot of the "Personal liberty" and Privacy people give up is still voluntary. At this point the only way to take back our privacy would be to overthrow the Government which isn't reasonable. Not true. Pay cash for everything and work for yourself in a cash transaction business, and keep off social media and you can pretty much reduce your public profile down to a driver's license, an SSN, and a ITIN. If you work for a company that isn't the government your employment records should be private and protected, same for medical records. The majority of public information people bitch and moan about has to do with social media and their voluntary participation in information sharing. You don't have to be on facebook, or twitter, or snapchat, or hipstergram. I'm trying to level with you guys here but of course you both pull the old bait and switch just to argue. Kerry, do you think Nikolas Cruz should have been able to legally purchase that AR-15? Greg thinks so. Level with us how? Let's assume the answer is no, how do you restrict him in accordance with due process, and the existing "shreds" of privacy we still have? How can you keep it out of his hands but still allowing others to buy an AR15? Remember Social Media is not truth, neither are medical records - they are people's opinions and they can (and often are) wrong. How do you propose to deal with the massive error rate that comes with incorporating "social media" and everything else that is "recorded" (but we still may have privacy rights to) into a government background check? How do you address the massive error rate that comes along with what you are proposing? If you want some historical reference about how what you are proposing can be abused, a good historical parallel that can be looked at is the history of Credit Reporting. Prior to the 1950's people's credit reports had all sorts of things in them. Women often had items that commented on their appearance, personality, etc...often people put things untrue negative things in the reports for immigrants out of spite or xenophobia, it was unregulated. And it was used for many of the same things we use it for today - employment background checks, renting shelter, etc. How would you like to know you lost a job opportunity or couldn't purchase a firearm because a few people put into your credit report that you have a fat ass? Congress intervened and now we have a huge amount of regulations concerning the information credit reporting agencies can collect and how they need to verify it, and still more is needed because they seem to be shitty at keeping that information private. Remember the Credit Agencies are not the government, and they have no obligation to turn over your credit information without a warrant or you agree to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furloaf Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Bump Stocks are stupid and IMO honestly don't have a place in the real-world of responsible gun ownership. To me their are equivalent of standing on the brakes of a daily driver Charger RT and doing a smokey burnout on OEM Tires in a parking lot at a cars and coffee event. YMMV. Feel the exact same way but I'm at zero "compromise." Not one inch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Feel the exact same way but I'm at zero "compromise." Not one inch. That's the spirit. Fuck Trump and his gun grabbing ways! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Feel the exact same way but I'm at zero "compromise." Not one inch. yeah because compromise would lead to less dead children and who wants that? :dumb: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furloaf Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 yeah because compromise would lead to less dead children and who wants that? :dumb: 1) any measure wouldn't affect any less dead children. If somehow a total confiscation successfully took place and there wasn't a single private firearm in America, these psychos would just make a gasoline bomb and blow up a school or some other method. Might even kill more than if they went on a shooting spree. 2) the only "compromise" not getting the total ban so dearly wanted. Those for guns only lose something and those against gain a stepping stone. A compromise has to work both ways to be such I probably wouldn't be such a hard-liner if there was a true honest discussion going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 1) any measure wouldn't affect any less dead children. Any measure that is currently being proposed. Agreed. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a measure that would affect that without being a total ban. If somehow a total confiscation successfully took place and there wasn't a single private firearm in America, these psychos would just make a gasoline bomb and blow up a school or some other method. Might even kill more than if they went on a shooting spree. ok, point to Any other incident where a school was blown up by a gasoline bomb. Since 1760 there have been 1373 reported school shootings in this country. By comparison in that same time frame there have been 12 reported school firebombings or serious but unsuccessful attempts at firebombings (and some of them are generally related to larger acts of terrorism like the OKC bombing and the Columbine incident). The highest number of incidents and highest death toll related to school shootings has occurred between 1970 and now. The highest death toll for a school firebombing that was not related to a larger act of terrorism was the bath school disaster of 1927 that occurred over several days and left 45 dead. You know what, I'd take those odds. Guns are fucking easy, making a pipe bomb, or a gas bomb that is effective is decidedly less so. 2) the only "compromise" not getting the total ban so dearly wanted. Those for guns only lose something and those against gain a stepping stone. A compromise has to work both ways to be such You seem to be the only one here talking about a total ban. You are also the one advocating "not one inch" and "no compromise". Which means you are the roadblock to a solution. What you fail to understand is that the only reason you have this perceived right in the first place is because of political compromise - the decision that the phrase "well regulated milita" (US v. Miller) was no longer relevant to the conversation wasn't decided until 1939, and it was done so as to prevent an early ATF tax and registration law that sprung up in the wake of the St Valentines day massacre. The lower court was actually in favor of the law, but knew that the defendant (Miller) was a bank robber and had testified in court against his gang, and would have to go into hiding after the trial - so he tried to keep it out of the supreme court because he knew the defendant wouldn't show. However, the case was appealed on another issue, and the Supreme court heard it anyway and of course the defendant didn't show. So the idea that a well regulated militia includes any weapon was won on default without any discussion as to the ramifications to it's meaning. It's an accident of history that fucked us all. I probably wouldn't be such a hard-liner if there was a true honest discussion going on. you are the bar to that true honest discussion. nobody want's to have a talk with an extremist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ODoyle Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 You give the government an inch and they will take a mile. I will agree that the 2nd amendment rights should not be infringed upon. Not one Inch. How would you feel if your freedom of speech was limited? Or how about the right to due process. Banning, or any measure that is going to take the gun from law abiding citizens isnt going to help anyone but criminals. Criminals are going to continue to get guns illegally just like they always have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRed05 Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 What is this "inch" a couple of you started talking about? Besides an outdated unit of measurement, I suppose you mean that you do not see any flaws with the current gun laws and do not want to change anything even if it's for the greater good? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ODoyle Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 The "inch" is bump stocks. Then its Binary triggers. Then its Magazines. Then its certain calibers. Then its certain guns. Then its all guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 The "inch" is bump stocks. Then its Binary triggers. Then its Magazines. Then its certain calibers. Then its certain guns. Then its all guns. You pissed at Trump today then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 I dunno Brandon and Tim, seems like you're going to get some push back from your "government bans guns from people on a secret watch list" plan. That sure sounds like an inch or two to me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.