Joe Biden gets into testy exchange with man over gun rights

[HaShev]

Biden wasn't wrong. And the dude was trying to troll Biden.

I remember Biden grabing Betos hand raising it and saying Beto would be in charge of Gun control/reform, so since Beto campaigned on gun confiscation the logical conclusion is Biden's solution is to put gun grabber in charge of the gun violence issue. Biden could have corrected him if not true and addressed his plans, but gaffe machine was told not to speak about substance where he'd fumble and bumble his thoughts, which would and could be picked apart anyway.

 

[two_iron]

So, the only time Plugs isn't a stuttering fucktard is when he's calling a voter a "piece of shit" or a "lying dog-faced pony soldier".... or “You’re a piece of shit and I hope everyone like you dies. Look here, pal, fuck you and fuck anybody who thinks like you.”

We get it....he's lovable.

 

[theHawk]

The voter in Detroit accuses biden of planning to take guns and Sleepy Joe loses it

Joe Biden gets into testy exchange with man over gun rights - CNNPolitics

Washington (CNN)Joe Biden got into a testy exchange Tuesday with a worker in Detroit who falsely accused the former vice president of wanting to confiscate guns from Americans, a remark that caused the Democratic presidential hopeful to say the man was "full of s***."

Gotta love how CNN just outright states that the man “falsely” accused Old Man Joe of wanting to confiscate guns.

Really? I guess CNN just “knows for a fact” that Old Joe doesn’t want to do something....

How about reporting what happened, the man asked Old Joe a question...

 

[theHawk]

Biden wasn't wrong. And the dude was trying to troll Biden.

Poor snowflake. A man simply pointing out he is for more gun control laws is...”trolling”?
Pathetic.

 

[busybee01]

The voter in Detroit accuses biden of planning to take guns and Sleepy Joe loses it

Joe Biden gets into testy exchange with man over gun rights - CNNPolitics

Washington (CNN)Joe Biden got into a testy exchange Tuesday with a worker in Detroit who falsely accused the former vice president of wanting to confiscate guns from Americans, a remark that caused the Democratic presidential hopeful to say the man was "full of s***."

Biden was 100% correct. The guy is full of shit. He is a far right wing cracked pot. I applaud Biden for telling him off.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The voter in Detroit accuses biden of planning to take guns and Sleepy Joe loses it

Joe Biden gets into testy exchange with man over gun rights - CNNPolitics

Washington (CNN)Joe Biden got into a testy exchange Tuesday with a worker in Detroit who falsely accused the former vice president of wanting to confiscate guns from Americans, a remark that caused the Democratic presidential hopeful to say the man was "full of s***."

Wrong.

Biden was spot on.

It’s sometimes necessary to use harsh language with the reprehensible right – to confront conservatives’ misinformation, demagoguery, and lies.

 

[Asclepias]

Any politician that cusses out a Drumpftard has my vote.

 

[otto105]

The voter in Detroit accuses biden of planning to take guns and Sleepy Joe loses it

Joe Biden gets into testy exchange with man over gun rights - CNNPolitics

Washington (CNN)Joe Biden got into a testy exchange Tuesday with a worker in Detroit who falsely accused the former vice president of wanting to confiscate guns from Americans, a remark that caused the Democratic presidential hopeful to say the man was "full of s***."

Hell yeah, way to go Joe.

Bitch slap that whiny pitiful deplorable with his gun lust.

 

[night_son]

Biden wasn't wrong. And the dude was trying to troll Biden.

Obvious double standard. That, and it is any voter's right to "troll" a candidate for office on issues that matter to him most. Limiting the Second Amendment is removing it or taking it away in the minds of many Americans. Defense of Biden's mental decay in any capacity is highly disingenuous. You want him to get the nomination and go on to win the election. Thus, you likely don't care in the least about his health.

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

It was definitely not a good exchange for Biden in my opinion.

 

[Asclepias]

Biden wasn't wrong. And the dude was trying to troll Biden.

He asked a question. Potty mouth Biden is losing it when he can’t even handle a good question from a blue collar worker.

I really liked when Biden called the fool a horses ass.

 

[Ame®icano]

Talking out of your ass?

AR-15 is not military weapon. AK-47 original is automatic, but for US sales is made semi-automatic, therefore not military weapon.

doesnt matter since the 2nd was specifically for weapons of war,,,

Specifically? Show me where.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

you just showed it,,,thanks,,,

unless youre saying it was about hunting??/

I don't see "weapons of war" in the Amendment.

I see "arms".

and what are arms???
you would also have to understand the context of why they put the 2nd in there which was to repel any force that would threaten the country/constitution,,be kinda stupid to limit it to slingshots or flintlocks,,,

I think we have misunderstanding here. Bare with me here, it might be long to read.

Leftist use term "weapons of war" to say that citizens shouldn't have them. It's quite opposite.

In the 1930’s, several classes of firearms were banned. One of them was short barreled shotguns when man was arrested with a short barreled shotgun, and his case contended that short barreled shotguns were protected under the 2nd Amendment, and it ended up before the Supreme Court. The Court decided that only certain firearms were protected by the Second Amendment, and in order to show why a short barreled shotgun was not protected by the Second Amendment, the Court had to establish "a criteria" for firearms that would be protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Essentially, they said "this can be banned", but "that can't be banned". Justice James Clark McReynolds wrote the the majority opinion. Here is the pertinent citation:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power... [constitutional militia authority, Art I, Sec 8, C 15]

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
[emphasis added]

US v Miller
Justice James Clark McReynolds

The first highlighted phrase establishes a criteria for the protected class, “A firearm which has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.

The second highlighted phrase describes the criteria for the protected class, “A firearm which is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense“.

These criteria seem as accurate as any description of “assault weapons”. In fact. when you think about “assault weapons”, they pretty much embody these criteria. So in essence, because they are “assault weapons”, they are protected. I think the Supreme Court will have little choice but to vacate an “assault weapons ban” as unconstitutional.

And to add, back in those days private citizens weren’t restricted to just guns, or even cannon, they could own actual warships, and with a privateer charter they could use those warships to attack foreign merchant shipping. In a way, US legalized piracy, if is done with government approval.

 

[OKTexas]

Biden was 100% right. That guy was full of shit. The AR-15 and AK-47 should be banned. These weapons are designed for military use. They can be loaded and unloaded quickly. You can't have a mortar so why should you have military designed rifles.

Talking out of your ass?

AR-15 is not military weapon. AK-47 original is automatic, but for US sales is made semi-automatic, therefore not military weapon.

The civilian version is still basically the military one. There are a few changes to prevent it from firing automatically but that is it.

More commie lies. Civilian ARs are not milspec. Meaning they are made from different materials not designed for high rates of fire and less durable.

.

Are you saying that except for the FCG and an extra 1.5 inches on the barrel my Colt 6920s are not milspec?

Not familiar with that model, what do the specs say? Is it the LE? Of course you're trying to play games, I was speaking of the run of the mill civilian ARs and you are talking special purpose builds. So stop trying to be cute, it only make you look stupid.

.

 

[protectionist]

I'm pretty sure that denying second amendment rights based on race or ethnicity will not be accepted by the courts as an exception.

You misconstrued. We're not talking about denying second amendment rights based on race or ethnicity. We're talking about denying PURCHASING rights to people with invalid background checks (wherin that happens to be because of a ludicrous govt policy that mentions race/ethnicity). While race /ethnicity may have some involvement, nevertheless, the basis for the denial is invalid background check.

One must pass a background check to buy a gun. Not having lots of pertinent information in a background is not passing a background check, and thus the sale must not happen. The cause of the denial is background check insufficency.

Secondly, are you saying that you would sell a gun to someone like Nickolas Cruz ? You think that's OK ?

I thought you liberal guys were strong on background checks. Not any more ?​

I am not a liberal. It may be hard for you to understand, but just because someone disagrees with you about something does not make them a liberal.

You can try all the mental gymnastics you want. If the idea is to only deny minorities theirBut Constitutional rights, it’s not going to pass legal muster. Again, if you think the programs you are talking about are terrible, push to get rid of those programs. That, at least, has a chance of happening.

But that's not the idea, no matter how much you keep moving the topic to that idea.

 

[OKTexas]

doesnt matter since the 2nd was specifically for weapons of war,,,

Specifically? Show me where.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

you just showed it,,,thanks,,,

unless youre saying it was about hunting??/

I don't see "weapons of war" in the Amendment.

I see "arms".

and what are arms???
you would also have to understand the context of why they put the 2nd in there which was to repel any force that would threaten the country/constitution,,be kinda stupid to limit it to slingshots or flintlocks,,,

I think we have misunderstanding here. Bare with me here, it might be long to read.

Leftist use term "weapons of war" to say that citizens shouldn't have them. It's quite opposite.

In the 1930’s, several classes of firearms were banned. One of them was short barreled shotguns when man was arrested with a short barreled shotgun, and his case contended that short barreled shotguns were protected under the 2nd Amendment, and it ended up before the Supreme Court. The Court decided that only certain firearms were protected by the Second Amendment, and in order to show why a short barreled shotgun was not protected by the Second Amendment, the Court had to establish "a criteria" for firearms that would be protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Essentially, they said "this can be banned", but "that can't be banned". Justice James Clark McReynolds wrote the the majority opinion. Here is the pertinent citation:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power... [constitutional militia authority, Art I, Sec 8, C 15]

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
[emphasis added]

US v Miller
Justice James Clark McReynolds

The first highlighted phrase establishes a criteria for the protected class, “A firearm which has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.

The second highlighted phrase describes the criteria for the protected class, “A firearm which is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense“.

These criteria seem as accurate as any description of “assault weapons”. In fact. when you think about “assault weapons”, they pretty much embody these criteria. So in essence, because they are “assault weapons”, they are protected. I think the Supreme Court will have little choice but to vacate an “assault weapons ban” as unconstitutional.

And to add, back in those days private citizens weren’t restricted to just guns, or even cannon, they could own actual warships, and with a privateer charter they could use those warships to attack foreign merchant shipping. In a way, US legalized piracy, if is done with government approval.

Yet tunnel rats in Nam used sawed off shotguns, go figure.

.

 

[protectionist]

I ran across this thread, forgot about it and then found it today. I'm late to yet another party, but I'm going to respond before I read the other responses so that I'm not influenced by extraneous matter.

I disagree that people with records should be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms. On that count, where we come up short is in the rehabilitation of people convicted of criminal activity. If you rehabilitate them and they must accomplish certain things (as opposed to being incarcerated for a specific period of time), you would be much more successful.

Currently America has more people in prison than any nation on this planet. Creating two classes of citizens after those people leave prison only strengthens the liberals that want to bury the Constitution. Furthermore, if you cannot trust that individual it is highly irresponsible to allow them to return to the streets of America. Rehabilitation.

In the case of Nicholas Cruz, his record was accumulated as a minor and those records are not available nor should they be. But, let's talk about Nicholas Cruz.

Nicholas Cruz, like virtually every mass shooter (with only a handful of exceptions), was a white male with no father figure and he was introduced to legal drugs with the known side effects of homicidal and suicidal tendencies. He had racked up a minimum of 12 interactions with the local constabularies and maybe as many as 45 interactions with the police. He had been suspended from school on numerous occasions.

We know who these mass shooters are long before they buy their first weapon. When I tell people the solution to this, the gun owners go ape shit because they cannot understand the difference between a civil intervention and the criminal process.

In Georgia (and I suspect most states are the same), the Dept. of Family and Children Services (aka CPS in some states) already has the power to investigate when a child's welfare is at stake. The immediate problem is that in every state, the Dept. of Family and Children Services, the agencies are an absolute clusterphuck. So, you have to fix those agencies. Then, when people like Nicholas Cruz need an intervention, you investigate and then get those children the appropriate help. This can be fixed without tax increases, without more bureaucracies, and without affecting anyone's Rights.

There are so many things I dispute here, I don't know where to begin. Oh well >>>

1. Few things could be more ludicrous than to disagree that people with records should be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms. Of course it depends on the type of records. In Nicolas Cruz' case (I'm not going to list all of his record) it's enough to to cite his public threats to shoot up the school. If his gun seller had known this, he correctly would have denied the sale. To go ahead with it (if that info were known), would be more than incorrect. It would be assinine, and dangerous, as we have seen.

2. Although I sympathize that minors should not be held as accountable as adults,with a record like Nicolas Cruz had compiled, it was ESSENTIAL for that full background to be included in his background investigation. Government's primary responsibility is PROTECTION of the public.

3. Cruz, with a Hispanic surname, has been defined as Hispanic.

4. No, we most certainly DO NOT know who these mass shooters are, and it is lunacies like the Promise Program, and all programs like it, what ever anybody calls them, that make us unable to know them and their backgrounds. It's evident you have not read this thread before posting. Maybe when you have more time (and a lot of it), you can go over it thoroughly, including the many links and sublinks I've posted.

Cruz might have been "Hispanic," but he grew up in a basically white culture, not a Hispanic one. But, yes, we do KNOW who is going to commit violent acts like a mass shooting in most cases.

People look back in retrospect and say "I'm not surprised." In Cruz's case, this is how it plays out in the news"

"I can't say I was shocked," Mr Charo said after the shooting.

"He seemed like the kind of kid who would do something like this."

FBI was warned about Florida gunman

Let's try another. An unidentified woman who knew Adam Lanza remarked:

"she was not shocked that he was the killer..."

Adam Lanza Threatened Sandy Hook Killings Years Earlier, Records Show

Pick your favorite five mass shooters and, unless you spend a Hell of a lot of time (like anomalies such as Stephen Paddock) virtually all of them are not committing an unforeseeable act. YES, we can identify these people in advance. Adam Lanza, Nicholas Cruz, the Columbine shooters, etc. etc. all have the same M.O. Mass shootings are generally committed by political jihadists OR they are committed by people who can be identified by quantifiable markers.

Lanza, Cruz, the Columbine shooters, and many others had no business being on the streets. They belonged in a mental health facility and those around them KNEW it. You just choose not to get involved, ask questions and see why a kid is being constantly tossed out of school, knows all the police that work in his precinct on a first name basis and instill fear in their classmates at school.

Let me tell you about your links. I will check them out though I doubt they will shed any new light on the matter. My wife will tell you that when a mass shooting takes place, once I know where it happened and the conditions, I can tell you almost anything you want to know about the shooter except his name. In the eight years we've been married, she can attest to the fact I'm never wrong.

Several years working as a foster parent and having taken training with DFACS to become one of their "assets," was worth more than all the statistics you can accumulate. Today I can work with a kid for a couple of weeks and tell you what his path in life is going to be. One truism in psychology is that past performance is the primary indicator of future performance.

When you have kids that are constantly on the radar of truant officers, school officials and racking up disciplinary actions followed up by family and neighbors calling the police on this individual, you KNOW you have a problem. Then, when that child is put on SSRIs (and put that into Google, then comma followed by any ten mass shooters picked at random) and that child is not supervised, you are guaranteed a violent outcome.

I have proposed legislation at the state level that, if enacted, would cut mass shootings by 90 percent. You can identify potentially dangerous people in advance, get them the help they need (or take them off the street if treatment does not work), but if you insist on not getting kids the help they need and deserve, you pay the consequences.

If you don't read the thread, you don't know what we're discussing here. It's about people NOT KNOWiNG backgrounds of criminals, whose crimes have been unreported, by promise programs.

 

[Ame®icano]

Specifically? Show me where.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

you just showed it,,,thanks,,,

unless youre saying it was about hunting??/

I don't see "weapons of war" in the Amendment.

I see "arms".

and what are arms???
you would also have to understand the context of why they put the 2nd in there which was to repel any force that would threaten the country/constitution,,be kinda stupid to limit it to slingshots or flintlocks,,,

I think we have misunderstanding here. Bare with me here, it might be long to read.

Leftist use term "weapons of war" to say that citizens shouldn't have them. It's quite opposite.

In the 1930’s, several classes of firearms were banned. One of them was short barreled shotguns when man was arrested with a short barreled shotgun, and his case contended that short barreled shotguns were protected under the 2nd Amendment, and it ended up before the Supreme Court. The Court decided that only certain firearms were protected by the Second Amendment, and in order to show why a short barreled shotgun was not protected by the Second Amendment, the Court had to establish "a criteria" for firearms that would be protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Essentially, they said "this can be banned", but "that can't be banned". Justice James Clark McReynolds wrote the the majority opinion. Here is the pertinent citation:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power... [constitutional militia authority, Art I, Sec 8, C 15]

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
[emphasis added]

US v Miller
Justice James Clark McReynolds

The first highlighted phrase establishes a criteria for the protected class, “A firearm which has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.

The second highlighted phrase describes the criteria for the protected class, “A firearm which is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense“.

These criteria seem as accurate as any description of “assault weapons”. In fact. when you think about “assault weapons”, they pretty much embody these criteria. So in essence, because they are “assault weapons”, they are protected. I think the Supreme Court will have little choice but to vacate an “assault weapons ban” as unconstitutional.

And to add, back in those days private citizens weren’t restricted to just guns, or even cannon, they could own actual warships, and with a privateer charter they could use those warships to attack foreign merchant shipping. In a way, US legalized piracy, if is done with government approval.

Yet tunnel rats in Nam used sawed off shotguns, go figure.

.

My point exactly. I don't know if Justice McReynolds was expert on guns when he wrote his ruling, since he said sawed off shotguns were not ordinary military equipment that can be used for common defense, and therefore can be banned. Use of those guns in Vietnam pretty much invalidated his ruling.

 

[Jitss617]

“ I’m not working for you!” Lol wtf

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I ran across this thread, forgot about it and then found it today. I'm late to yet another party, but I'm going to respond before I read the other responses so that I'm not influenced by extraneous matter.

I disagree that people with records should be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms. On that count, where we come up short is in the rehabilitation of people convicted of criminal activity. If you rehabilitate them and they must accomplish certain things (as opposed to being incarcerated for a specific period of time), you would be much more successful.

Currently America has more people in prison than any nation on this planet. Creating two classes of citizens after those people leave prison only strengthens the liberals that want to bury the Constitution. Furthermore, if you cannot trust that individual it is highly irresponsible to allow them to return to the streets of America. Rehabilitation.

In the case of Nicholas Cruz, his record was accumulated as a minor and those records are not available nor should they be. But, let's talk about Nicholas Cruz.

Nicholas Cruz, like virtually every mass shooter (with only a handful of exceptions), was a white male with no father figure and he was introduced to legal drugs with the known side effects of homicidal and suicidal tendencies. He had racked up a minimum of 12 interactions with the local constabularies and maybe as many as 45 interactions with the police. He had been suspended from school on numerous occasions.

We know who these mass shooters are long before they buy their first weapon. When I tell people the solution to this, the gun owners go ape shit because they cannot understand the difference between a civil intervention and the criminal process.

In Georgia (and I suspect most states are the same), the Dept. of Family and Children Services (aka CPS in some states) already has the power to investigate when a child's welfare is at stake. The immediate problem is that in every state, the Dept. of Family and Children Services, the agencies are an absolute clusterphuck. So, you have to fix those agencies. Then, when people like Nicholas Cruz need an intervention, you investigate and then get those children the appropriate help. This can be fixed without tax increases, without more bureaucracies, and without affecting anyone's Rights.

There are so many things I dispute here, I don't know where to begin. Oh well >>>

1. Few things could be more ludicrous than to disagree that people with records should be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms. Of course it depends on the type of records. In Nicolas Cruz' case (I'm not going to list all of his record) it's enough to to cite his public threats to shoot up the school. If his gun seller had known this, he correctly would have denied the sale. To go ahead with it (if that info were known), would be more than incorrect. It would be assinine, and dangerous, as we have seen.

2. Although I sympathize that minors should not be held as accountable as adults,with a record like Nicolas Cruz had compiled, it was ESSENTIAL for that full background to be included in his background investigation. Government's primary responsibility is PROTECTION of the public.

3. Cruz, with a Hispanic surname, has been defined as Hispanic.

4. No, we most certainly DO NOT know who these mass shooters are, and it is lunacies like the Promise Program, and all programs like it, what ever anybody calls them, that make us unable to know them and their backgrounds. It's evident you have not read this thread before posting. Maybe when you have more time (and a lot of it), you can go over it thoroughly, including the many links and sublinks I've posted.

Cruz might have been "Hispanic," but he grew up in a basically white culture, not a Hispanic one. But, yes, we do KNOW who is going to commit violent acts like a mass shooting in most cases.

People look back in retrospect and say "I'm not surprised." In Cruz's case, this is how it plays out in the news"

"I can't say I was shocked," Mr Charo said after the shooting.

"He seemed like the kind of kid who would do something like this."

FBI was warned about Florida gunman

Let's try another. An unidentified woman who knew Adam Lanza remarked:

"she was not shocked that he was the killer..."

Adam Lanza Threatened Sandy Hook Killings Years Earlier, Records Show

Pick your favorite five mass shooters and, unless you spend a Hell of a lot of time (like anomalies such as Stephen Paddock) virtually all of them are not committing an unforeseeable act. YES, we can identify these people in advance. Adam Lanza, Nicholas Cruz, the Columbine shooters, etc. etc. all have the same M.O. Mass shootings are generally committed by political jihadists OR they are committed by people who can be identified by quantifiable markers.

Lanza, Cruz, the Columbine shooters, and many others had no business being on the streets. They belonged in a mental health facility and those around them KNEW it. You just choose not to get involved, ask questions and see why a kid is being constantly tossed out of school, knows all the police that work in his precinct on a first name basis and instill fear in their classmates at school.

Let me tell you about your links. I will check them out though I doubt they will shed any new light on the matter. My wife will tell you that when a mass shooting takes place, once I know where it happened and the conditions, I can tell you almost anything you want to know about the shooter except his name. In the eight years we've been married, she can attest to the fact I'm never wrong.

Several years working as a foster parent and having taken training with DFACS to become one of their "assets," was worth more than all the statistics you can accumulate. Today I can work with a kid for a couple of weeks and tell you what his path in life is going to be. One truism in psychology is that past performance is the primary indicator of future performance.

When you have kids that are constantly on the radar of truant officers, school officials and racking up disciplinary actions followed up by family and neighbors calling the police on this individual, you KNOW you have a problem. Then, when that child is put on SSRIs (and put that into Google, then comma followed by any ten mass shooters picked at random) and that child is not supervised, you are guaranteed a violent outcome.

I have proposed legislation at the state level that, if enacted, would cut mass shootings by 90 percent. You can identify potentially dangerous people in advance, get them the help they need (or take them off the street if treatment does not work), but if you insist on not getting kids the help they need and deserve, you pay the consequences.

If you don't read the thread, you don't know what we're discussing here. It's about people NOT KNOWiNG backgrounds of criminals, whose crimes have been unreported, by promise programs.

I have read where you went on the thread. I still gave my initial thoughts on the OP. As an issue, I just don't think the promise programs are going anywhere.

 

[protectionist]

I ran across this thread, forgot about it and then found it today. I'm late to yet another party, but I'm going to respond before I read the other responses so that I'm not influenced by extraneous matter.

I disagree that people with records should be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms. On that count, where we come up short is in the rehabilitation of people convicted of criminal activity. If you rehabilitate them and they must accomplish certain things (as opposed to being incarcerated for a specific period of time), you would be much more successful.

Currently America has more people in prison than any nation on this planet. Creating two classes of citizens after those people leave prison only strengthens the liberals that want to bury the Constitution. Furthermore, if you cannot trust that individual it is highly irresponsible to allow them to return to the streets of America. Rehabilitation.

In the case of Nicholas Cruz, his record was accumulated as a minor and those records are not available nor should they be. But, let's talk about Nicholas Cruz.

Nicholas Cruz, like virtually every mass shooter (with only a handful of exceptions), was a white male with no father figure and he was introduced to legal drugs with the known side effects of homicidal and suicidal tendencies. He had racked up a minimum of 12 interactions with the local constabularies and maybe as many as 45 interactions with the police. He had been suspended from school on numerous occasions.

We know who these mass shooters are long before they buy their first weapon. When I tell people the solution to this, the gun owners go ape shit because they cannot understand the difference between a civil intervention and the criminal process.

In Georgia (and I suspect most states are the same), the Dept. of Family and Children Services (aka CPS in some states) already has the power to investigate when a child's welfare is at stake. The immediate problem is that in every state, the Dept. of Family and Children Services, the agencies are an absolute clusterphuck. So, you have to fix those agencies. Then, when people like Nicholas Cruz need an intervention, you investigate and then get those children the appropriate help. This can be fixed without tax increases, without more bureaucracies, and without affecting anyone's Rights.

There are so many things I dispute here, I don't know where to begin. Oh well >>>

1. Few things could be more ludicrous than to disagree that people with records should be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms. Of course it depends on the type of records. In Nicolas Cruz' case (I'm not going to list all of his record) it's enough to to cite his public threats to shoot up the school. If his gun seller had known this, he correctly would have denied the sale. To go ahead with it (if that info were known), would be more than incorrect. It would be assinine, and dangerous, as we have seen.

2. Although I sympathize that minors should not be held as accountable as adults,with a record like Nicolas Cruz had compiled, it was ESSENTIAL for that full background to be included in his background investigation. Government's primary responsibility is PROTECTION of the public.

3. Cruz, with a Hispanic surname, has been defined as Hispanic.

4. No, we most certainly DO NOT know who these mass shooters are, and it is lunacies like the Promise Program, and all programs like it, what ever anybody calls them, that make us unable to know them and their backgrounds. It's evident you have not read this thread before posting. Maybe when you have more time (and a lot of it), you can go over it thoroughly, including the many links and sublinks I've posted.

Cruz might have been "Hispanic," but he grew up in a basically white culture, not a Hispanic one. But, yes, we do KNOW who is going to commit violent acts like a mass shooting in most cases.

People look back in retrospect and say "I'm not surprised." In Cruz's case, this is how it plays out in the news"

"I can't say I was shocked," Mr Charo said after the shooting.

"He seemed like the kind of kid who would do something like this."

FBI was warned about Florida gunman

Let's try another. An unidentified woman who knew Adam Lanza remarked:

"she was not shocked that he was the killer..."

Adam Lanza Threatened Sandy Hook Killings Years Earlier, Records Show

Pick your favorite five mass shooters and, unless you spend a Hell of a lot of time (like anomalies such as Stephen Paddock) virtually all of them are not committing an unforeseeable act. YES, we can identify these people in advance. Adam Lanza, Nicholas Cruz, the Columbine shooters, etc. etc. all have the same M.O. Mass shootings are generally committed by political jihadists OR they are committed by people who can be identified by quantifiable markers.

Lanza, Cruz, the Columbine shooters, and many others had no business being on the streets. They belonged in a mental health facility and those around them KNEW it. You just choose not to get involved, ask questions and see why a kid is being constantly tossed out of school, knows all the police that work in his precinct on a first name basis and instill fear in their classmates at school.

Let me tell you about your links. I will check them out though I doubt they will shed any new light on the matter. My wife will tell you that when a mass shooting takes place, once I know where it happened and the conditions, I can tell you almost anything you want to know about the shooter except his name. In the eight years we've been married, she can attest to the fact I'm never wrong.

Several years working as a foster parent and having taken training with DFACS to become one of their "assets," was worth more than all the statistics you can accumulate. Today I can work with a kid for a couple of weeks and tell you what his path in life is going to be. One truism in psychology is that past performance is the primary indicator of future performance.

When you have kids that are constantly on the radar of truant officers, school officials and racking up disciplinary actions followed up by family and neighbors calling the police on this individual, you KNOW you have a problem. Then, when that child is put on SSRIs (and put that into Google, then comma followed by any ten mass shooters picked at random) and that child is not supervised, you are guaranteed a violent outcome.

I have proposed legislation at the state level that, if enacted, would cut mass shootings by 90 percent. You can identify potentially dangerous people in advance, get them the help they need (or take them off the street if treatment does not work), but if you insist on not getting kids the help they need and deserve, you pay the consequences.

If you don't read the thread, you don't know what we're discussing here. It's about people NOT KNOWiNG backgrounds of criminals, whose crimes have been unreported, by promise programs.

I have read where you went on the thread. I still gave my initial thoughts on the OP. As an issue, I just don't think the promise programs are going anywhere.

They already HAVE gone somewhere. To the cemetery, where 17 people are buried. Any PP still existing, is a huge threat to the American people, with regard to many types of crimes.