Jeb on Oregon Massacre: ‘Stuff Happens’

[CrusaderFrank]

Progs get all wee weed up when Obama demands

 

[Stephanie]

Progs get all wee weed up when Obama demands

they just bow, no questions asked

 

[B. Kidd]

these poor souls from this won't have any bones to bury by the time the left gets done using them

disgusting

It is time for non-partisan common sense to prevail on this issue. I do have the in-between moderate answer, for now.

there is no in between. Unless they can go and lock up every criminal, gang member and nut cases. nobody is stepping on my second amendment

I haven't KILLED ANYONE.

Steph, there is an in-between. Besides requiring a background check for gun ownership, a short anger mgmt. assessment is combined with it. Novel? No. The wherewithal has been available since 1982.

Anger management classes? Are you sane?

Yes I am. Not classes, dummy. An AM assessment at the time a background check is done. Take the assessment, pass, you get your gun checked against the background check of a criminal record.
It's totally sane........and, it won't be a 'cure-all', but will screen out some and save lives......like seatbelts....which isn't a cure-all either.
But since you cannot comprehende that, I will save myself some keystrokes rather than try to break that down to a neanderthal like you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

there is no in between. Unless they can go and lock up every criminal, gang member and nut cases. nobody is stepping on my second amendment

I haven't KILLED ANYONE.

Steph, there is an in-between. Besides requiring a background check for gun ownership, a short anger mgmt. assessment is combined with it. Novel? No. The wherewithal has been available since 1982.

funny post B.Kidd , thankyou !!

Yer' welcome.

knew you weren't interested in a discussion.

What's your solution?

We don't need a solution to such a SMALL problem. But if you must do something require that Judges report findings of incompetence to the federal system. Wouldn't have done anything about the last few shootings though as NONE of the shooters were in the system. What is YOUR solution?

 

[westwall]

these poor souls from this won't have any bones to bury by the time the left gets done using them

disgusting

It is time for non-partisan common sense to prevail on this issue. I do have the in-between moderate answer, for now.

there is no in between. Unless they can go and lock up every criminal, gang member and nut cases. nobody is stepping on my second amendment

I haven't KILLED ANYONE.

Steph, there is an in-between. Besides requiring a background check for gun ownership, a short anger mgmt. assessment is combined with it. Novel? No. The wherewithal has been available since 1982.

Anger management classes? Are you sane?

Yes I am. Not classes, dummy. An AM assessment at the time a background check is done. Take the assessment, pass, you get your gun checked against the background check of a criminal record.
It's totally sane........and, it won't be a 'cure-all', but will screen out some and save lives......like seatbelts....which isn't a cure-all either.
But since you cannot comprehende that, I will save myself some keystrokes rather than try to break that down to a neanderthal like you.

The problem with your assessment is the authorities can change the requirements at will. Thus making it impossible for anyone save their friends and supporters to get weapons. I am sorry you're such a stupid moron, but even a total nimrod could see the problem with your idea.

 

[B. Kidd]

Steph, there is an in-between. Besides requiring a background check for gun ownership, a short anger mgmt. assessment is combined with it. Novel? No. The wherewithal has been available since 1982.

funny post B.Kidd , thankyou !!

Yer' welcome.

knew you weren't interested in a discussion.

What's your solution?

We don't need a solution to such a SMALL problem. But if you must do something require that Judges report findings of incompetence to the federal system. Wouldn't have done anything about the last few shootings though as NONE of the shooters were in the system. What is YOUR solution?

See post #43 above. And I will get the attention of legislators!!!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

funny post B.Kidd , thankyou !!

Yer' welcome.

knew you weren't interested in a discussion.

What's your solution?

We don't need a solution to such a SMALL problem. But if you must do something require that Judges report findings of incompetence to the federal system. Wouldn't have done anything about the last few shootings though as NONE of the shooters were in the system. What is YOUR solution?

See post #43 above. And I will get the attention of legislators!!!

It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to require a test to exercise a protected right.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I've trained my legions of mindless zombies voters to react to shootings, but not black on black crime

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This is how bad Bush Derangement Syndrome is, it extends to family members

 

[B. Kidd]

It is time for non-partisan common sense to prevail on this issue. I do have the in-between moderate answer, for now.

there is no in between. Unless they can go and lock up every criminal, gang member and nut cases. nobody is stepping on my second amendment

I haven't KILLED ANYONE.

Steph, there is an in-between. Besides requiring a background check for gun ownership, a short anger mgmt. assessment is combined with it. Novel? No. The wherewithal has been available since 1982.

Anger management classes? Are you sane?

Yes I am. Not classes, dummy. An AM assessment at the time a background check is done. Take the assessment, pass, you get your gun checked against the background check of a criminal record.
It's totally sane........and, it won't be a 'cure-all', but will screen out some and save lives......like seatbelts....which isn't a cure-all either.
But since you cannot comprehende that, I will save myself some keystrokes rather than try to break that down to a neanderthal like you.

The problem with your assessment is the authorities can change the requirements at will. Thus making it impossible for anyone save their friends and supporters to get weapons. I am sorry you're such a stupid moron, but even a total nimrod could see the problem with your idea.

Nope. The assessment is independently self-contained, is data-based, been around since the early 80's and continuously refines itself, has a user-agreement. Combined with a background check, will measure an anger profile..........if you fail both, then, simply, no gun for you, legally.
Watch for it in the upcoming years.........I'm gonna get 'er done!!!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

there is no in between. Unless they can go and lock up every criminal, gang member and nut cases. nobody is stepping on my second amendment

I haven't KILLED ANYONE.

Steph, there is an in-between. Besides requiring a background check for gun ownership, a short anger mgmt. assessment is combined with it. Novel? No. The wherewithal has been available since 1982.

Anger management classes? Are you sane?

Yes I am. Not classes, dummy. An AM assessment at the time a background check is done. Take the assessment, pass, you get your gun checked against the background check of a criminal record.
It's totally sane........and, it won't be a 'cure-all', but will screen out some and save lives......like seatbelts....which isn't a cure-all either.
But since you cannot comprehende that, I will save myself some keystrokes rather than try to break that down to a neanderthal like you.

The problem with your assessment is the authorities can change the requirements at will. Thus making it impossible for anyone save their friends and supporters to get weapons. I am sorry you're such a stupid moron, but even a total nimrod could see the problem with your idea.

Nope. The assessment is independently self-contained, is data-based, been around since the early 80's and continuously refines itself, has a user-agreement. Combined with a background check, will measure an anger profile..........if you fail both, then, simply, no gun for you, legally.
Watch for it in the upcoming years.........I'm gonna get 'er done!!!

No test administered by a person is without bias. Further as already noted it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to require a test to exercise a protected right. You nor the Government can require it legally.

 

[B. Kidd]

Yer' welcome.

knew you weren't interested in a discussion.

What's your solution?

We don't need a solution to such a SMALL problem. But if you must do something require that Judges report findings of incompetence to the federal system. Wouldn't have done anything about the last few shootings though as NONE of the shooters were in the system. What is YOUR solution?

See post #43 above. And I will get the attention of legislators!!!

It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to require a test to exercise a protected right.

Point taken. I could've said are drivers' license tests unconstitutional, but didn't. I'll leave that up to legal beagles.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

knew you weren't interested in a discussion.

What's your solution?

We don't need a solution to such a SMALL problem. But if you must do something require that Judges report findings of incompetence to the federal system. Wouldn't have done anything about the last few shootings though as NONE of the shooters were in the system. What is YOUR solution?

See post #43 above. And I will get the attention of legislators!!!

It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to require a test to exercise a protected right.

Point taken. I could've said are drivers' license tests unconstitutional, but didn't. I'll leave that up to legal beagles.

Driving is not a right protected by the Constitution.

 

[Stephanie]

oh oh, look what Obama said. I do believe he just said, stuff happens so let us use it for OUR AGENDAS, k. PUKE.....not good ummhumm


snip:

Obama: Let’s start politicizing shootings, okay?
posted at 7:21 pm on October 1, 2015 by Ed Morrissey

• 851 SHARES

Shouldn’t we at least wait to get all the facts before doing so? In fact, even before President Obama urges people to politicize the shooting in Oregon this afternoon, he admits that “we don’t know all the facts yet,” and in fact don’t know whether the myriad of laws surrounding gun ownership already were violated. It’s not much short of calling for mob action, a scene that has already popped up too often in American life this year too:

ALL of it here:
Obama: Let’s start politicizing shootings, okay?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“But I resist the notion—and I had this challenge as governor—because we had—look, stuff happens, there’s always a crisis. And the impulse is always to do something and it’s not necessarily the right thing to do.”

The problem with this idiocy from Bush is that it shuts the door on sound, appropriate measures, such as Manchin-Toomey.

 

[B. Kidd]

Steph, there is an in-between. Besides requiring a background check for gun ownership, a short anger mgmt. assessment is combined with it. Novel? No. The wherewithal has been available since 1982.

Anger management classes? Are you sane?

Yes I am. Not classes, dummy. An AM assessment at the time a background check is done. Take the assessment, pass, you get your gun checked against the background check of a criminal record.
It's totally sane........and, it won't be a 'cure-all', but will screen out some and save lives......like seatbelts....which isn't a cure-all either.
But since you cannot comprehende that, I will save myself some keystrokes rather than try to break that down to a neanderthal like you.

The problem with your assessment is the authorities can change the requirements at will. Thus making it impossible for anyone save their friends and supporters to get weapons. I am sorry you're such a stupid moron, but even a total nimrod could see the problem with your idea.

Nope. The assessment is independently self-contained, is data-based, been around since the early 80's and continuously refines itself, has a user-agreement. Combined with a background check, will measure an anger profile..........if you fail both, then, simply, no gun for you, legally.
Watch for it in the upcoming years.........I'm gonna get 'er done!!!

No test administered by a person is without bias. Further as already noted it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to require a test to exercise a protected right. You nor the Government can require it legally.

The test itself is computer based. If you can read, no person needs to administer it. If you can't, then someone can put the answers in for you. Simple, eh?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

“But I resist the notion—and I had this challenge as governor—because we had—look, stuff happens, there’s always a crisis. And the impulse is always to do something and it’s not necessarily the right thing to do.”

The problem with this idiocy from Bush is that it shuts the door on sound, appropriate measures, such as Manchin-Toomey.

Be specific, what would you suggest we do? And no i am not going to look up old bills be specific state what you think can be done in your own words.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Anger management classes? Are you sane?

Yes I am. Not classes, dummy. An AM assessment at the time a background check is done. Take the assessment, pass, you get your gun checked against the background check of a criminal record.
It's totally sane........and, it won't be a 'cure-all', but will screen out some and save lives......like seatbelts....which isn't a cure-all either.
But since you cannot comprehende that, I will save myself some keystrokes rather than try to break that down to a neanderthal like you.

The problem with your assessment is the authorities can change the requirements at will. Thus making it impossible for anyone save their friends and supporters to get weapons. I am sorry you're such a stupid moron, but even a total nimrod could see the problem with your idea.

Nope. The assessment is independently self-contained, is data-based, been around since the early 80's and continuously refines itself, has a user-agreement. Combined with a background check, will measure an anger profile..........if you fail both, then, simply, no gun for you, legally.
Watch for it in the upcoming years.........I'm gonna get 'er done!!!

No test administered by a person is without bias. Further as already noted it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to require a test to exercise a protected right. You nor the Government can require it legally.

The test itself is computer based. If you can read, no person needs to administer it. If you can't, then someone can put the answers in for you. Simple, eh?

Ohh so computers are self thinking and require no input from humans now?

 

[B. Kidd]

Yes I am. Not classes, dummy. An AM assessment at the time a background check is done. Take the assessment, pass, you get your gun checked against the background check of a criminal record.
It's totally sane........and, it won't be a 'cure-all', but will screen out some and save lives......like seatbelts....which isn't a cure-all either.
But since you cannot comprehende that, I will save myself some keystrokes rather than try to break that down to a neanderthal like you.

The problem with your assessment is the authorities can change the requirements at will. Thus making it impossible for anyone save their friends and supporters to get weapons. I am sorry you're such a stupid moron, but even a total nimrod could see the problem with your idea.

Nope. The assessment is independently self-contained, is data-based, been around since the early 80's and continuously refines itself, has a user-agreement. Combined with a background check, will measure an anger profile..........if you fail both, then, simply, no gun for you, legally.
Watch for it in the upcoming years.........I'm gonna get 'er done!!!

No test administered by a person is without bias. Further as already noted it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to require a test to exercise a protected right. You nor the Government can require it legally.

The test itself is computer based. If you can read, no person needs to administer it. If you can't, then someone can put the answers in for you. Simple, eh?

Ohh so computers are self thinking and require no input from humans now?

Ever fill out a questionaire via computer?
Look, in my career, I've done Pre-sentence investigations, DUI assessments, Domestic violence assessments, Substance abuse assessments.............and they are highly reliable when combined with a background check.
With basic clinical baselines and guidelines, an intake worker under the auspices of a clinician, can readily determine if someone should legally own a gun, or not.
It is not rocket science.
Mass murders have reached an earmark of being a public health hazard. Why would anyone be opposed to a common-sensical approach at trying to decease this hazard, when 2nd rights amendments and the well-being of society can both be improved upon?
Anger Mangement Profiles, or (AMP) have been in existence since 1982.
It's a no-brainer.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Yer' welcome.

knew you weren't interested in a discussion.

What's your solution?

We don't need a solution to such a SMALL problem. But if you must do something require that Judges report findings of incompetence to the federal system. Wouldn't have done anything about the last few shootings though as NONE of the shooters were in the system. What is YOUR solution?

See post #43 above. And I will get the attention of legislators!!!

It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to require a test to exercise a protected right.

...and yet we require proof that a person is not a minor before anyone can sell him a gun. I guess that is unconstitutional, no?