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



## BasicHumanUnit (Jul 30, 2019)

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.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 30, 2019)

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


----------



## PredFan (Jul 30, 2019)

As long as we continue to focus on the tool used and not on the offender, there will be no stopping these people.

If anything, the 2A can stop at least some of it, but they always happen where guns are prohibited.


----------



## depotoo (Jul 30, 2019)

None. It’s a blood sport between felon criminals that don’t care about laws one way or another.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jul 30, 2019)

Since the civil war, how many times have Americans taken up arms against the government to protect their rights? Yes, I know there have been a couple cases when crazy nut jobs took over a bird sanctuary or similar things, but how many times have the public been at armed conflict with our government?


----------



## bodecea (Jul 30, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> Since the civil war, how many times have Americans taken up arms against the government to protect their rights? Yes, I know there have been a couple cases when crazy nut jobs took over a bird sanctuary or similar things, but how many times have the public been at armed conflict with our government?


They only talk...they all rolled over on their yellow bellies for the Patriot Act.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Jul 30, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> Since the civil war, how many times have Americans taken up arms against the government to protect their rights? Yes, I know there have been a couple cases when crazy nut jobs took over a bird sanctuary or similar things, but how many times have the public been at armed conflict with our government?



If you want to count the Civil war?

Otherwise, there has probably been no other time in US history when tyrants are so obviously trying to disarm Americans and rule by iron fist.

And if they never have the will to defend their Constitutional rights, then All That Was Required For Evil men To Prevail.........


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Jul 30, 2019)

bodecea said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Since the civil war, how many times have Americans taken up arms against the government to protect their rights? Yes, I know there have been a couple cases when crazy nut jobs took over a bird sanctuary or similar things, but how many times have the public been at armed conflict with our government?
> ...




Unfortunately True.
Apparently, it will take serious, and I mean life changing, life threatening circumstances before Americans are vaguely motivated to stand up for their rights and freedoms.  And even then, only a small percentage will.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 30, 2019)

PredFan said:


> As long as we continue to focus on the tool used and not on the offender, there will be no stopping these people.
> 
> If anything, the 2A can stop at least some of it, but they always happen where guns are prohibited.


How much faster would armed citizens have stopped that INCEL thug in Gilroy than the cops?  Last time there was a group of armed citizens at a shooting, in Dallas, they all ran screaming like little girls.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Jul 30, 2019)

bodecea said:


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



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


----------



## OldLady (Jul 30, 2019)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


The truth is that many of us are willing to have firearms regulated and therefore, they will not "stand up" with fanatics who are sure their gun collection is the only thing standing between themselves and total chaos.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Jul 30, 2019)

bodecea said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > As long as we continue to focus on the tool used and not on the offender, there will be no stopping these people.
> ...



There is a very large number of incidents where a licensed firearm carrier stopped a criminal with a gun.  The media refuses to report the cases but it's thousands per year easily.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Jul 30, 2019)

OldLady said:


> The truth is that many of us are willing to have firearms regulated and therefore, they will not "stand up" with fanatics who are sure their gun collection is the only thing standing between themselves and total chaos.



*Between themselves and PROVEN HISTORY*

Of which you apparently know nothing.  if you knew anything about history, you would know that for mankind, freedom has been a very short lived and rare occurrence.
Most humans that have lived have lived under some form of oppression.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jul 30, 2019)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Since the civil war, how many times have Americans taken up arms against the government to protect their rights? Yes, I know there have been a couple cases when crazy nut jobs took over a bird sanctuary or similar things, but how many times have the public been at armed conflict with our government?
> ...




So you're wetting your pants and arming up for something that has never happened, and there is no reason to believe will ever happen. Typical gun nut.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jul 30, 2019)

OldLady said:


> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Gun nuts think every gun owner is firmly with them. They are drastically wrong.


----------



## OldLady (Jul 30, 2019)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > The truth is that many of us are willing to have firearms regulated and therefore, they will not "stand up" with fanatics who are sure their gun collection is the only thing standing between themselves and total chaos.
> ...


I believe you responded to the wrong poster?


----------



## Defiant1 (Jul 30, 2019)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> 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.
> 
> ...





How much intentional fake news justifies overruling the 1st amendment?


----------



## Rambunctious (Jul 30, 2019)

How many shootings will it take to ban violent shooter games and movies of gun toting monsters?.....You can't ban guns and leave them in movies and games....so why not try banning the violent movie and games first?....we had guns before shooter games but we didn't have mass shootings.....what has changed?....not guns...not gun ownership...the games have changed...movies have changed...kids have changed....


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jul 30, 2019)

bodecea said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Since the civil war, how many times have Americans taken up arms against the government to protect their rights? Yes, I know there have been a couple cases when crazy nut jobs took over a bird sanctuary or similar things, but how many times have the public been at armed conflict with our government?
> ...


You know that the patriot act was created and signed by the establishment to spy on people?  When Obama, Pelosi and Reid were all in power in 2009, they could of abolished that act, but instead used it to spy in 2016.  Funny how liberals bitch and moan then use the very tools they bitched and moaned about.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jul 30, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> Since the civil war, how many times have Americans taken up arms against the government to protect their rights? Yes, I know there have been a couple cases when crazy nut jobs took over a bird sanctuary or similar things, but how many times have the public been at armed conflict with our government?




how many times have you used your fire ins on your house since youve had it???


----------



## BULLDOG (Jul 30, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Since the civil war, how many times have Americans taken up arms against the government to protect their rights? Yes, I know there have been a couple cases when crazy nut jobs took over a bird sanctuary or similar things, but how many times have the public been at armed conflict with our government?
> ...



Once, but it isn't an odd occurrence.  Fire insurance is used several times every day. Did you have a point?


----------



## Marion Morrison (Jul 30, 2019)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > None... it's a blood sport in America.
> ...



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.


----------



## night_son (Jul 30, 2019)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



I mostly agree with you, however, the Second Amendment is absolutely about personal safety, community and national safety—which are all intertwined and so depend on each other in order to achieve and ensure our safety on any level imaginable. The radical American left will take our personal firearms if We The People let them. And, they damn well will celebrate the day they've left us unable to protect our families from "poor-victim" minorities and foreign mass murderers. You can take that to the bank.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jul 30, 2019)

night_son said:


> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



I didn't know that's what I wanted. Are you sure that it wasn't that straw man that wanted to take your guns?


----------



## progressive hunter (Jul 30, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




and guns are used everyday to save lives from both criminals and government


better to have it and not need it than the other way around


----------



## depotoo (Jul 30, 2019)

Rambunctious said:


> How many shootings will it take to ban violent shooter games and movies of gun toting monsters?.....You can't ban guns and leave them in movies and games....so why not try banning the violent movie and games first?....we had guns before shooter games but we didn't have mass shootings.....what has changed?....not guns...not gun ownership...the games have changed...movies have changed...kids have changed....


And the treatment of the mentally ill has changed.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Jul 30, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> So you're wetting your pants and arming up for something that has never happened, and there is no reason to believe will ever happen. Typical gun nut.



Stop the crotch inspections, it's gay.
Do your homework and find out what happened in April of 1861
Read the Constitution at least once in your life.  Then study history and find out what has happened to unarmed populations many times.
It has absolutely ZERO to do with being a "gun nut".    But it does take some common sense to figure all that out.
And incredible idiocy to allow it to happen to yourself yet again in spite of histories warnings.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Jul 30, 2019)

night_son said:


> I mostly agree with you, however, the Second Amendment is absolutely about personal safety, community and national safety—which are all intertwined and so depend on each other in order to achieve and ensure our safety on any level imaginable. The radical American left will take our personal firearms if We The People let them. And, they damn well will celebrate the day they've left us unable to protect our families from "poor-victim" minorities and foreign mass murderers. You can take that to the bank.



At the time the Constitution was written, the Primary focus was on preventing a relapse of American government into a tyrannical beast similar to what Great Britain was perceived as during those times.   The taxation without representation pushed many over the line.   The 2nd Amendment primarily addresses the concept of government tyranny.

That said, the Right To Bear Arms could also be construed to have a secondary meaning to extend to personal safety.   But the Left largely likes to re-interpret that as meaning that only people in Government allowed Militias should have the right to "Bear" arms.
Imagine that....the Left wants THE GOVERNMENT to dictate who can bear arms.   This is the antithesis of the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

And yes, regardless of any perfunctory implications, and all the propaganda, the ultimate goal is disarming the American people.   The leftist stool pigeons at the bottom simply believe their lying leaders every deceptive word without question.


----------



## 22lcidw (Jul 30, 2019)

The politicians cause this with their decrees over the the last several decades. Somehow the 2nd amendment is at fault.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Jul 30, 2019)

22lcidw said:


> The politicians cause this with their decrees over the the last several decades. Somehow the 2nd amendment is at fault.



Yes.  because they will never take the blame for what they have done or allowed.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jul 30, 2019)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > So you're wetting your pants and arming up for something that has never happened, and there is no reason to believe will ever happen. Typical gun nut.
> ...



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.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Jul 30, 2019)




----------



## BULLDOG (Jul 30, 2019)

Marion Morrison said:


>



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


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Jul 30, 2019)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



This subject pops up every time there is a mass shooting and every time I remind people that we could end over 90 percent of all mass shootings without gun control.  And then people ask for the answer - and I give it.  But, it don't fit on a bumper sticker nor will fit into a Tweet.  So, as Winston Churchill once observed:

_“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.”_


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Jul 30, 2019)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > None... it's a blood sport in America.
> ...



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.


----------



## PredFan (Jul 31, 2019)

bodecea said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > As long as we continue to focus on the tool used and not on the offender, there will be no stopping these people.
> ...



First of all, it wouldn't have happened. They never want to do these shootings in places where guns are allowed, and 2nd, even armed people will run and even cry out when surprised like that, but one armed person would have stopped the shooter faster.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Jul 31, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> 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.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Jul 31, 2019)

Porter Rockwell said:


> 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:
> 
> ...



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.



Porter Rockwell said:


> 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.


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Jul 31, 2019)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...




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.


----------



## OldLady (Jul 31, 2019)

Marion Morrison said:


> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


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.


----------



## OldLady (Jul 31, 2019)

Porter Rockwell said:


> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> > Porter Rockwell said:
> ...


_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 (Jul 31, 2019)

Porter Rockwell said:


> 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 (Jul 31, 2019)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Jul 31, 2019)

OldLady said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > BasicHumanUnit said:
> ...



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 (Jul 31, 2019)

Porter Rockwell said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Marion Morrison said:
> ...


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 (Jul 31, 2019)

OldLady said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



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 (Jul 31, 2019)

Porter Rockwell said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Porter Rockwell said:
> ...


_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 (Jul 31, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



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 (Jul 31, 2019)

OldLady said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...




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 (Jul 31, 2019)

Porter Rockwell said:


> 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
> ...



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 (Jul 31, 2019)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 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 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 (Jul 31, 2019)

BasicHumanUnit said:


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



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 (Jul 31, 2019)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> 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.
> 
> ...








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 (Jul 31, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



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 (Jul 31, 2019)

Marion Morrison said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Marion Morrison said:
> ...



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 (Jul 31, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



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


----------



## BULLDOG (Jul 31, 2019)

Porter Rockwell said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > BasicHumanUnit said:
> ...



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 (Jul 31, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...






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 (Jul 31, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



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


----------



## BULLDOG (Jul 31, 2019)

Marion Morrison said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Marion Morrison said:
> ...



Link?


----------



## BULLDOG (Jul 31, 2019)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Porter Rockwell said:
> ...



You're a loyal little Trumpie Bear, aren't you? Anything you don't like, just call it fake news. President Cheeto and Hannity  should be proud of you.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jul 31, 2019)

Marion Morrison said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Porter Rockwell said:
> ...



Wow, you must really be stumped. That claim about polls before the election is usually reserved as the Trumpster's dodge of last resort. Of course those polls were right. She did get 3 million more votes, but a perfect storm of cheating, Democratic apathy, and Comey's announcement allowed that illegitimate clown to walk away with the prize


----------



## Marion Morrison (Jul 31, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



A Decade Later, Remember New Orleans … Gun Confiscation Can (And Has) Happened In America

California's gun seizure squad finds an arsenal under a bed - CNN


Next!


----------



## BULLDOG (Jul 31, 2019)

Marion Morrison said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Marion Morrison said:
> ...



The California link was about a felon who was not allowed to own guns having his arsenal confiscated. Are you in favor of felons being armed? At the time of the link (about a year ago) California was the only state that actively checked felons to see if they had guns that they legally couldn't have. While I see where that might be disappointing to a felon in possession of guns he isn't allowed to have, it is better than waiting until he uses them in a crime before they are taken from him.  He shouldn't have them to start with, right?

The New Orleans link describes an abuse of power that should have never happened. Thankfully, soon after that happened, President Bush signed a federal law preventing gun confiscation during times of emergency to prevent that from happening again. 

I will change my question slightly. Do you think someone will legally come to take your and my guns? Do you distrust America that much?


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Jul 31, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



I don't give a rat's ass what the majority wants.  The founders / framers made their points about our Republic unequivocally clear:

"_The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...t establishes some rights of the individual as* unalienable* and which consequently, *no majority has a right to deprive them of*."

Albert Gallatin, letter to Alexander Addison, October 7, 1789

*Unalienable* Rights are codified in the Bill of Rights.  So, while I think your stats are as bogus as it gets, it would not matter if the figure were 99 percent.  We are not constitutionally obligated to give up* unalienable* Rights.  That word has a meaning.  It means the Right is absolute and the majority can kiss my ass.  If gun owners are serious, they will give that subject a very thorough examination._


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Jul 31, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Will this never end?  Trump won the Electoral College.  This is not a democracy people.  Trump gets where he's at by cheating; the left gets votes by lying.  What's the difference?  When the next leftist is elected, the liberals will defend that individual even if they screwed their own mother for money to finance the election.


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Jul 31, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Why would you trust a government that don't trust you?  Why would you allow a government to violate your Rights on the pretext of promising you safety?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 31, 2019)

bodecea said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Since the civil war, how many times have Americans taken up arms against the government to protect their rights? Yes, I know there have been a couple cases when crazy nut jobs took over a bird sanctuary or similar things, but how many times have the public been at armed conflict with our government?
> ...


not all of us


----------



## BULLDOG (Jul 31, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Yes, some pf you whine on message boards and pretend to be ex military.


----------



## westwall (Jul 31, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







No one is in favor of felons owning guns except for the ultra crazy sovereign people, and you progressives.  We want the violent criminals to be locked up forever, you don't.  You want them released to prey on the civilian population so that you can then bleat about taking gun Rights away from the 99.999% of those who own guns legally.


----------



## DGS49 (Jul 31, 2019)

If you want to modify or get rid of the Second Amendment, be a fucking man and do it properly.

Get your Senator or Congressman, or your analogous state Legislator to propose an appropriate Amendment to the Constitution.  Then get it passed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, and by the state legislatures of three-fourths of the states.

If you think that will be too HARD, then go fuck yourself.

No, wait.  Just be a Leftist and try to get a Leftist President elected, so he can nominate Leftist Supreme Court justices so they can IGNORE the Second Amendment, and pass whatever the fuck "Constitutional" idea they deem appropriate (disguising it as an "interpretation" of the Second Amendment), instead of the ACTUAL Second Amendment.

It might be easier.


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Jul 31, 2019)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Marion Morrison said:
> ...



If people with violent tendencies are put away for good and another person pays their debt to society, how do you justify having two classes of citizens in the United States?

A guy breaks the law and pays for his crime.  He proves to be a model citizen.  You would then not allow him the Right to protect his sons and daughters and his wife on *what *pretext???


----------



## westwall (Jul 31, 2019)

Porter Rockwell said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







If you are a violent felon, you shouldn't be walking the streets.


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Jul 31, 2019)

westwall said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Agreed.  Others who have paid for the crimes should return as freemen with their *unalienable* Rights restored.


----------



## westwall (Jul 31, 2019)

Porter Rockwell said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Porter Rockwell said:
> ...







Maybe.  It depends on the crime they committed.  In some cases i agree with you.  Even felons can get a relief of disability to own long guns for hunting etc.  Those are very useful in home defense as well.


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Jul 31, 2019)

westwall said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



It is you are either for *unalienable *Rights or against them.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jul 31, 2019)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Marion Morrison said:
> ...




So you agree that the above link to a felon having his guns confiscated in California wasn't an example a Democratic effort to take everybody's guns. 
Again, I have no idea why you think you know what I might want, but the things you list are bullshit. I guess that should be expected from you. People who claim to be experts in everything are often wrong about most things.


----------



## Yarddog (Jul 31, 2019)

bodecea said:


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




Absolutely false.  The vast majority of gun owners who are NON GANG MEMBERS are responsible. The stats back it up.  If you think its a blood sport, you've probably been binging on NET FLICKS


----------



## BULLDOG (Jul 31, 2019)

westwall said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You need to make up your mind. That's the exact opposite of what you just said a few minutes ago.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 31, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 31, 2019)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Marion Morrison said:
> ...


Why shouldn't a felon get their rights back after the government says they have paid their debt to society?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 31, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


Just keep IGNORING the Democrats running for President that have said YES they would confiscate Firearms.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Aug 1, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Why shouldn't a felon get their rights back after the government says they have paid their debt to society?



Wait,....you're all for confiscation and every gun grabber stupid new law they can come up with against law abiding good citizens..........

BUT...you'll fight for the rights of murderers, child molesters and rapists to be armed ???

This mentality is fucked up on So many levels


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 1, 2019)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Why shouldn't a felon get their rights back after the government says they have paid their debt to society?
> ...


When in the fuck have I ever said I am ok with confiscation of firearms?
If the government says they have paid their debt they should have their rights fully reinstated 
If not keep them locked up.


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Aug 1, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...




It appears to me that the left does not understand what an* unalienable* Right is and the people on the right want to ignore it.  

Did all of you realize that the United States Supreme Court once admitted that the Right to keep and bear Arms existed, but it was not a Right granted by the Second Amendment NOR is it dependent upon that instrument for its existence?

In other words, even if the Second Amendment were completely repealed, the Right would exist.  All the Second Amendment can do is *guarantee *the Right.  If someone tries to enforce a law to infringe on the Second Amendment (and the government is now infringing on that Right), it is our duty and obligation to demand the government make good on the guarantee.  We have the Right, the Duty and the Obligation to resist any effort by government to deprive any free man of the Right to keep and bear Arms.

Word to the left:  Quit allowing the government to set dangerous and crazy people back onto your streets.  If a person cannot be trusted to own a firearm, they are still a dangerous threat to the community.  Ban dangerous people, not guns.  Keep them locked up; keep them in mental facilities; keep them under constant supervision.  But, don't let them back into the streets, then bitch when they commit an inevitable violent act.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Aug 1, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> When in the fuck have I ever said I am ok with confiscation of firearms?
> If the government says they have paid their debt they should have their rights fully reinstated
> If not keep them locked up.



Wait...your're not a Democrat / Prog or Socialist ?
because "usually" they're the ones screaming for Criminal Social Justice


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Aug 2, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> 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



Bimbo,
Show me where I said the government doesn't have "the right" to make regulations.   Stop making shit up as you go.

Absolute imbeciles like you, however, are MORE than happy to give up your rights and take away the rights of others in your dumbass pursuit of some snowflake 'Utopia", attempting to solve a problem that doesn't exist.  You've been told 1000 times by people WAY smarter than you on this forum that the vast majority of gun deaths are suicides and gang related.  NOT random murders.   Except in LEFTIST "Utopias" like Chicago and Los Angeles.

The ONLY 'Gun problem" in this country is Leftist.  PERIOD.  everyone knows that.  But instead of focusing on the real problem, you loons run around like Chicken Little
screaming how evil "GUNS" are.

No.....idiot......guns are not dangerous.....PEOPLE are.   Guns don't just wake up in the morning and decide to go kill someone.
Fix the problem with you morons on the Left and your idiotic policies that cater to criminals and there will be NO " Gun Problem": at all.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 2, 2019)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Guns don't kill people. Unstable idiots with guns do. That's why we need to regulate who gets them , dumb ass.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Aug 2, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> Guns don't kill people. Unstable idiots with guns do. That's why we need to regulate who gets them , dumb ass.



We already do. 
Unstable people on the LEFT do 97% of all YOUR gun violence.   FIX YOUR PEOPLE....and fix "the problem"

How many more laws and rules do you think it will take to get the job done?  100?  1000?  100,000 ?
Stop being an imbecile.

Morons who keep thinking more laws that ONLY AFFECT Law Abiding People will curb violence are retarded.   Factually.
It's why the UK has become the stabbing and acid throwing capital of the world.  and why cars and trucks are used to mow down crowds there.

What you are begging for on your scrawny weak knees is an endless stream of ever tightening laws and regulations until guns are essentially outlawed.
Stop being a pussy and admit it.


----------



## Hossfly (Aug 2, 2019)

Don't Mess With Texas


----------



## MaryL (Aug 2, 2019)

You don't get this do you? You must be new here or a real Pollyanna. If this was 1955, yeah our government listened to US. Think back to Eisenhower warning us against Military industrial complex. But little did he ever imagine  our society and our entire government  would have been corrupted by our own politicians or inteligencia. And who made that happen?  I keep seeing the face of  George Soros. Wealthy foreign manipulators. Because none of this was a spontaneous cry from indigenous folks asking for diversity. Nope, never happened. This push for open borders, and sanctuary cities.  Nobody asked for or needed   giving Muslims sanctuary in Europe or Illegals here in the states , funny that was never asked  for or by requested by locals. But it's  imposed on us nonetheless. That seems to be a constant here. That  isn't what a  free and open democracy is about. It seems more like a dictatorship.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 2, 2019)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Guns don't kill people. Unstable idiots with guns do. That's why we need to regulate who gets them , dumb ass.
> ...



Oh god. Are you gonna start whining about the UK like that other gun nut? They have extremely low crime problems, especially compared to us. We should do what they are doing..


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 13, 2019)

OldLady said:


> The truth is that many of us are willing to have firearms regulated and therefore, they will not "stand up" with fanatics who are sure their gun collection is the only thing standing between themselves and total chaos.


Wait...
Because you do not agree with certain people, you will not stand up for their rights?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Aug 13, 2019)

bodecea said:


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


How many gun massacres have been committed by a NRA member?  Think very carefully about this, we dont want you to get it wrong.  Let me give you a hint.

It isnt 1,000,000
It isnt 100,000
It isnt 10,000
It isnt 1,000
It isnt 100
It isnt 10
It isnt 1

Have you guessed how many gun massacres have been committed by a NRA member yet?  Would you deprive these women of the ability to defend themselves from the likes of the liberals like Harvey Weinstein and Jeffery Epstein?  Do you have a War on Women?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Aug 13, 2019)

Marion Morrison said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Marion Morrison said:
> ...


In Maryland a Red Flag law was enacted on a resident at 5am in the morning with the "POLICE" showing up and pounding on the guys door.  When he opened the door, the guy had a pistol the police tried to take it, a struggle ensued and the guy was shot dead.  The liberals on this board just got a thrill run up their legs because they want all law abiding citizens to be killed, then the liberals can take what they want without a fight.  That is the real reason, just look at what the Nazi's did to the Jews when the Jews couldn't fight back.  

Home Resident Killed by Maryland Police Trying Confiscate His Guns


> _Police spokesman Jacklyn Davis said officers responded to 103 Linwood Avenue at around 5:15 a.m. to serve an “emergency risk protective order,” also known as the red flag order._
> _The man answered the door armed with a handgun and a struggle ensued as officers attempted to disarm the man, Davis said._
> _During the struggle, the man’s handgun discharged and police fired shots, Davis said. _


_ 
Maryland’s ‘Red Flag’ Law Turns Deadly: Officer Kills Man Who Refused To Turn In Gun
_


----------



## sparky (Aug 13, 2019)

You folks just don't understand

the quickest way to control the American populace isn't to deprive them of their guns, it's to allow us all as many as we'd like, shoot up the town, etc.

THAT elicits the '_control_' they wish to impose

don't any of you THINK they've thought this out?

>>>>>*N.I.M.S*.<<<<<

~S~


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 13, 2019)

andaronjim said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > None... it's a blood sport in America.
> ...



How many gun massacres were enabled because the NRA fought to make sure the shooters could have all the guns they wanted? All of them.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 13, 2019)

andaronjim said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...





*"The liberals on this board just got a thrill run up their legs because they want all law abiding citizens to be killed"*

The above is a quote from andaronjim.  No matter what your political beliefs are, read that quote and decide if you think those are the words of a sane person.


----------



## PredFan (Aug 13, 2019)

"How many mass shooting will have to happen before you give up your guns?"

Me: "I don't know. How many rapes will have to happen before you'll cut off your dick?"


----------

