Nancy Pelosi Owes MAGA Supporters An Apology: Colorado Gay Nightclub Shooter Identifies as Non-Binary, Uses ‘They/Them’ Pronouns

[WEATHER53]

Or here's a crazy idea, you actually do a check.

You don't rely on some low level flunky to put information into the computer.

For instance, when I got a mortgage, despite having an 800+ Credit score (No credit card debt, always pay my bills on time), the bank that I have done business with for 20 years didn't just take my word for it or punch my name into equifax. They actually did a thorough background check into all my finances. I joked to my realtor the only thing they didn't ask for was a colonoscopy.

When I got my current job, my employer did a thorough background check, including talking to past employers and coworkers, checking my criminal record, and checking my financials.

When i applied for a FOID Card... I paid $11.00 and someone punched my name into a computer, I guess. And this is the supposedly strict Illinois laws.

Oh, final note. The USAF had to pay out $230 MILLION to families killed and injured because some E-4 didn't punch in this guys name into a computer. But the store that sold this maniac a gun didn't pay a dime.

That's fucked up, man.

Air Force Ordered to Pay $230 Million to Victims of 2017 Church Shooting (Published 2022)

A federal judge on Monday ruled that the U.S. Air Force must pay survivors and families of the 26 people killed in the attack in Sutherland Springs, Texas, for its failure to report the gunman’s criminal history.

www.nytimes.com

No employer is allowed to require a review of your “financials” as a condition of employment
Long elaborate postings with lots of details can be just as erroneous as one sentence.

 

[Auld Phart]

Or here's a crazy idea, you actually do a check.

You don't rely on some low level flunky to put information into the computer.

For instance, when I got a mortgage, despite having an 800+ Credit score (No credit card debt, always pay my bills on time), the bank that I have done business with for 20 years didn't just take my word for it or punch my name into equifax. They actually did a thorough background check into all my finances. I joked to my realtor the only thing they didn't ask for was a colonoscopy.

When I got my current job, my employer did a thorough background check, including talking to past employers and coworkers, checking my criminal record, and checking my financials.

When i applied for a FOID Card... I paid $11.00 and someone punched my name into a computer, I guess. And this is the supposedly strict Illinois laws.

is getting a mortgage a Right?

Is getting a job Right?

How old were you when they shoved that ramrod up your ass, and called it a spine?

You are the most rigid person I have ever 'met'.

 

[Auld Phart]

Or here's a crazy idea, you actually do a check.

You don't rely on some low level flunky to put information into the computer.

For instance, when I got a mortgage, despite having an 800+ Credit score (No credit card debt, always pay my bills on time), the bank that I have done business with for 20 years didn't just take my word for it or punch my name into equifax. They actually did a thorough background check into all my finances. I joked to my realtor the only thing they didn't ask for was a colonoscopy.

When I got my current job, my employer did a thorough background check, including talking to past employers and coworkers, checking my criminal record, and checking my financials.

When i applied for a FOID Card... I paid $11.00 and someone punched my name into a computer, I guess. And this is the supposedly strict Illinois laws.

Oh, final note. The USAF had to pay out $230 MILLION to families killed and injured because some E-4 didn't punch in this guys name into a computer. But the store that sold this maniac a gun didn't pay a dime.

That's fucked up, man.

Air Force Ordered to Pay $230 Million to Victims of 2017 Church Shooting (Published 2022)

A federal judge on Monday ruled that the U.S. Air Force must pay survivors and families of the 26 people killed in the attack in Sutherland Springs, Texas, for its failure to report the gunman’s criminal history.

www.nytimes.com

But the store that sold this maniac a gun didn't pay a dime.

Why would they?

They did nothing wrong.

 

[JoeB131]

No employer is allowed to require a review of your “financials” as a condition of employment
Long elaborate postings with lots of details can be just as erroneous as one sentence.

While I am sure this isn't the case for your burger-flipping job, most companies do a financial background check. Understandable, the last thing you want is someone in finanical trouble having access to the money part of your company. For instance, I am in purchasing, and yes, there's a big risk that I could solicit kickbacks from vendors or some such.

 

[JoeB131]

Why would they?

They did nothing wrong.

They sold a gun to a maniac who shot up a church.

 

[Auld Phart]

They sold a gun to a maniac who shot up a church.

They legally sold a gun to a maniac who shot up a church.

 

[JoeB131]

They legally sold a gun to a maniac who shot up a church.

Well, no, he wasn't legally allowed to own a gun due to his bad conduct discharge from the USAF.
And if they bothered to do a real background check, they would have known that.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Well, no, he wasn't legally allowed to own a gun due to his bad conduct discharge from the USAF.
And if they bothered to do a real background check, they would have known that.

That's not true. You can be discharged from the military for numerous offenses.

Stop lying

 

[Auld Phart]

Well, no, he wasn't legally allowed to own a gun due to his bad conduct discharge from the USAF.
And if they bothered to do a real background check, they would have known that.

They did a 'real' background check. the same one that thousands of people a year pass.

There was NO info in the system to prevent him from buying the firearm.

 

[hadit]

Except I posted a source about his Mormonism... and you pretend you didn't see it, which is why I don't usually post links.

I didn't see it and wasn't responding to you in the first place. What, do you think I hang breathlessly on everything you post?

 

[hadit]

I'll be happy to do so... but I suspect I won't have to.

Okay, make gun stores liable for selling to ineligible people, but while you're at it, they're protected if they follow every regulation, get a clean background check, impose a waiting period, etc. ONLY if they fail to follow the regulations can they be held liable. I have no problem with enforcing existing laws, but I do have a big problem with holding them liable if they do everything right and follow every law. That's just making them a scapegoat and does nothing positive at all. Of course, your goal is to shut down all legal means of purchasing a firearm, so I don't believe for a second you'd go for anything that lets them off the hook for any reason whatsoever.

Now, do you really think most criminals buy their guns at a gun store?

 

[hadit]

Or here's a crazy idea, you actually do a check.

You don't rely on some low level flunky to put information into the computer.

For instance, when I got a mortgage, despite having an 800+ Credit score (No credit card debt, always pay my bills on time), the bank that I have done business with for 20 years didn't just take my word for it or punch my name into equifax. They actually did a thorough background check into all my finances. I joked to my realtor the only thing they didn't ask for was a colonoscopy.

When I got my current job, my employer did a thorough background check, including talking to past employers and coworkers, checking my criminal record, and checking my financials.

When i applied for a FOID Card... I paid $11.00 and someone punched my name into a computer, I guess. And this is the supposedly strict Illinois laws.

Oh, final note. The USAF had to pay out $230 MILLION to families killed and injured because some E-4 didn't punch in this guys name into a computer. But the store that sold this maniac a gun didn't pay a dime.

That's fucked up, man.

Air Force Ordered to Pay $230 Million to Victims of 2017 Church Shooting (Published 2022)

A federal judge on Monday ruled that the U.S. Air Force must pay survivors and families of the 26 people killed in the attack in Sutherland Springs, Texas, for its failure to report the gunman’s criminal history.

www.nytimes.com

Wait a minute. The party actually responsible for the failure was held responsible and you don't like it because the store wasn't? The bottom line here is that you don't care if the store did everything perfectly, you want them sued out of existence.

 

[WEATHER53]

While I am sure this isn't the case for your burger-flipping job, most companies do a financial background check. Understandable, the last thing you want is someone in finanical trouble having access to the money part of your company. For instance, I am in purchasing, and yes, there's a big risk that I could solicit kickbacks from vendors or some such.

You are incorrect and operating from what you wish was true or feel should be. That’s Lib 101 as thinkers know it.
A place you are applying to work at cannot require bank statements from you. They cannot look into your savings or checking or stocks or Anything like that.
They can obtain a credit report on you but your offering that they can inquire to other persons about if “you pay your bills on time” is such a childish, ludicrous offering.

 

[Nostra]

I think we should make murder illegal since criminals follow laws.

 

[JoeB131]

They did a 'real' background check. the same one that thousands of people a year pass.

There was NO info in the system to prevent him from buying the firearm.

That is by design. Let's be honest, the kind of people who want guns are often the kinds of people who shouldn't have them.
But if they didn't get guns, you wouldn't have the fear that makes people who probably don't need them want one as well.
So the gun industry has lobbied Congress for

Okay, make gun stores liable for selling to ineligible people, but while you're at it, they're protected if they follow every regulation, get a clean background check, impose a waiting period, etc. ONLY if they fail to follow the regulations can they be held liable. I have no problem with enforcing existing laws, but I do have a big problem with holding them liable if they do everything right and follow every law. That's just making them a scapegoat and does nothing positive at all. Of course, your goal is to shut down all legal means of purchasing a firearm, so I don't believe for a second you'd go for anything that lets them off the hook for any reason whatsoever.

Except that they don't do it right if a crazy person like Joker Holmes or Awake the Rapper were able to buy a gun despite a ton of red flags.

Now, do you really think most criminals buy their guns at a gun store?

I think that most guns used in criminal activities start at gun stores, and the gun store owners know that is where they are going when the Gun Store in Indiana sells a Mac-10 to the gang-bangers baby mama. This is why the gun industry shit itself when the store that sold to the DC Snipers was found liable.

Wait a minute. The party actually responsible for the failure was held responsible and you don't like it because the store wasn't? The bottom line here is that you don't care if the store did everything perfectly, you want them sued out of existence.

The air force screwed up. So did the gun store when they saw a guy who was pretty clearly nuts and sold him a gun anyway.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Why didnt Nancy Pelosi blame the Calyer Ellingston murder on Biden? The POS Dem who killed the kid said it was political.


What did that evil bitch say about that murder?

Pelosi’s daughter mocked Rand Paul.

Did Pelosi blame Bernie for the Scalise shooting?

Fuck you left wing fake asshole. You just lie all the time.

 

[hadit]

Except that they don't do it right if a crazy person like Joker Holmes or Awake the Rapper were able to buy a gun despite a ton of red flags.

The only legal red flags a gun store can go by are what come out of the background check. You thinking they look crazy isn't good enough. Most psychopathic serial killers don't look crazy at all, they look quite normal, or they wouldn't be able to blend into society so easily.

I think that most guns used in criminal activities start at gun stores, and the gun store owners know that is where they are going when the Gun Store in Indiana sells a Mac-10 to the gang-bangers baby mama. This is why the gun industry shit itself when the store that sold to the DC Snipers was found liable.

Except that what you "know" isn't going to protect you when the baby mama passes all the background checks, is still denied the gun she wanted for protection from the baby daddy because Joe behind the counter thinks she wanted to give it to a gang-banger, gets killed, and your store gets sued. "But, but, but we knew she was just buying it for him, she was clearly crazy, we didn't think she would be safe with it, blah, blah, blah" isn't going to bring her back.

The air force screwed up. So did the gun store when they saw a guy who was pretty clearly nuts and sold him a gun anyway.

See, here's the problem. You can't diagnose mental illness by looking at a person. That's right, not even you can do that, and it doesn't matter if your super-duper spidey sense is tingling because the person wanting to buy a gun from you has a drooping eyelid and you think they're crazy. Try denying anyone any service you're selling because they're "pretty clearly nuts" and see how far you get.

The bottom line is, you don't care if the AF screwed up, you just want the gun store sued out of existence, and don't care how it's done.

 

[JoeB131]

The only legal red flags a gun store can go by are what come out of the background check. You thinking they look crazy isn't good enough. Most psychopathic serial killers don't look crazy at all, they look quite normal, or they wouldn't be able to blend into society so easily.

Um, yeah, about that.

Why they look perfectly normal and they really need a military grade weapon!

Except that what you "know" isn't going to protect you when the baby mama passes all the background checks, is still denied the gun she wanted for protection from the baby daddy because Joe behind the counter thinks she wanted to give it to a gang-banger, gets killed, and your store gets sued. "But, but, but we knew she was just buying it for him, she was clearly crazy, we didn't think she would be safe with it, blah, blah, blah" isn't going to bring her back.

No one has ever been sued for refusing to sell someone a gun. Since DGU's are pretty much unicorns, I don't worry about it.

See, here's the problem. You can't diagnose mental illness by looking at a person. That's right, not even you can do that, and it doesn't matter if your super-duper spidey sense is tingling because the person wanting to buy a gun from you has a drooping eyelid and you think they're crazy. Try denying anyone any service you're selling because they're "pretty clearly nuts" and see how far you get.

You'll get quite far, once you know that you'll get your ass sued if you DO sell to a crazy person or a criminal or a straw buyer.

Here's the real reason this terrifies you. Because most of the hard core 2A people ARE fucking nuts. But the gun industry considers them a prime market. They realize hunting has fallen out of fashion and 50% of the guns are owned by 3% of the population. Their prime market isn't the guy who bought a gun in the 1990's and stuck it in his closet and forgot about it. It's the fucking nut who thinks he needs to buy five more guns because you've convinced him Biden is going to take all the guns (I wish!) And sadly, those people ARE a couple tacos short of a combination platter.

 

[JoeB131]

Why didnt Nancy Pelosi blame the Calyer Ellingston murder on Biden? The POS Dem who killed the kid said it was political.


What did that evil bitch say about that murder?

Pelosi’s daughter mocked Rand Paul.

Did Pelosi blame Bernie for the Scalise shooting?

Fuck you left wing fake asshole. You just lie all the time.

Killing of Cayler Ellingson - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A man called the police to inform them that he had killed Ellingson after a political conversation. He said that he had attacked Ellingson for allegedly being part of a "Republican extremist group"[1] and that the victim was calling someone else on the phone before he attacked,[2] who was later identified as his mother.[3] The man reportedly interpreted the call as an attempt to report him to others.[4] According to police, there was "no evidence" to the assertions on Ellingson's political views. A blood study did find that the man's blood alcohol content level was 0.08, above the legal limit for driving.[5]

So a drunk driver ran someone over and thought (in a drunken stupor) that saying he was a right wing extremist would get him off?

The point is, your whole political side has been DEMONIZING LGBTQ+ people for years, are you really surprised when something like this happens? I'm not.
Your side has been making it easy for the mentally ill to get guns for years, are you really surprised when something like this happens? I'm not.

 

[hadit]

Um, yeah, about that.

View attachment 731055View attachment 731056

Why they look perfectly normal and they really need a military grade weapon!

Here's the thing, you only call them crazy because they wanted a gun. If they were protesting a gun store and throwing Molotov cocktails into it trying to burn out the employees, you'd be cheering them on as perfectly sane and slamming anyone who called them freaks.

No one has ever been sued for refusing to sell someone a gun. Since DGU's are pretty much unicorns, I don't worry about it.

DGU's happen frequently. You know it but refuse to admit it. The documentation has been shown to you, but you keep insisting it's not a valid use unless somebody gets shot (talk about ignoring links). And yes, we only need a handful of women killed by abusive boyfriends because they were denied access to guns (because Joe thinks they'll only give them to their abusive boyfriends).

You'll get quite far, once you know that you'll get your ass sued if you DO sell to a crazy person or a criminal or a straw buyer.

Here's the real reason this terrifies you. Because most of the hard core 2A people ARE fucking nuts. But the gun industry considers them a prime market. They realize hunting has fallen out of fashion and 50% of the guns are owned by 3% of the population. Their prime market isn't the guy who bought a gun in the 1990's and stuck it in his closet and forgot about it. It's the fucking nut who thinks he needs to buy five more guns because you've convinced him Biden is going to take all the guns (I wish!) And sadly, those people ARE a couple tacos short of a combination platter.

And yet they're not the ones shooting up the place, are they? Haven't you noticed that the shooters don't care about gun laws? I have yet to see a shooter ranting that he was killing people because he was rightly afraid Quid Pro was going to take his guns away. Apparently, you're either pretending that they are or being willfully ignorant about them.

Nothing about this terrifies me because I choose not to own guns for my own reasons, so your petty restrictions don't bother me. Choice is a wonderful thing, isn't it? You, OTOH, ARE terrified that you're not going to be able to make the case that gun stores should deny guns to anyone based on how they look, how they're dressed, etc. Do you secretly want to open the door to 5' 8" white Charlie getting a gun, but 6' 3" black Tyrone doesn't because Tyrone scares the person behind the counter while Charlie doesn't? "Sorry, Tyrone, you passed the background check, but Joe says we shouldn't let you buy guns because you look like a gang-banger". You know it will happen. A customer looks gay? Sorry, no gun. Black? Sorry, no gun. Colored hair, tattoos, piercings? Sorry, no gun. Resting Bitch Face? Nope. There's a reason we don't let businesses refuse to serve customers based on their looks. Heck, we don't even let bakers refuse service to people who explicitly state they will use the product in ways unacceptable to the baker.