Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A private citizen would be held responsible for selling a gun to a felon so your premise is BS.In other news millions of other law abiding gun owning citizens go about their daily lives.As soon as someone uses a firearm to commit murder of innocent people they are breaking the law. They no longer follow the Constitution. Gun rights activist are no more responsible for this women's actions than a Liberal is for Muslim terrorist attacks.
And be sure to thank your republican congressman for blocking the democrats from closing the loophole that would have made it illegal for a private individual to sell John Hinkley a firearm. Also, there is a guy on my block who has had 3 DWI's, and his license has been revoked, and is known for his temper and abusive behavior, but since he has not been convicted of a felony, he can decide to order a firearm by passing a background check, and the next time his wife gets out of line, he just might teach her a lesson.
..and not one of these law abiding citizens would have lost anything if it were illegal for a private individual from selling a firearm to a felon or mentally unstable person....
And what do you think will happen to the person who's name that weapon is regestered to when the [erson they sold it to commits a crime ?A private citizen would be held responsible for selling a gun to a felon so your premise is BS.In other news millions of other law abiding gun owning citizens go about their daily lives.As soon as someone uses a firearm to commit murder of innocent people they are breaking the law. They no longer follow the Constitution. Gun rights activist are no more responsible for this women's actions than a Liberal is for Muslim terrorist attacks.
And be sure to thank your republican congressman for blocking the democrats from closing the loophole that would have made it illegal for a private individual to sell John Hinkley a firearm. Also, there is a guy on my block who has had 3 DWI's, and his license has been revoked, and is known for his temper and abusive behavior, but since he has not been convicted of a felony, he can decide to order a firearm by passing a background check, and the next time his wife gets out of line, he just might teach her a lesson.
..and not one of these law abiding citizens would have lost anything if it were illegal for a private individual from selling a firearm to a felon or mentally unstable person....
False. You can pull up Craig's list in your home town and buy whatever you want, no questions asked, because no background check is required by law unless you are a licensed firearms dealer.
Adult kids...running away?Because women never killed their kids in any other way. You are an idiot.Texas Mom Who Killed 2 Daughters Had a 'History of Mental Illness,' Authorities Say
The woman, who shot and killed her daughters and who had a history of mental illness, was a Facebook anti-gun control activist:
"Christy was an active user on Facebook, and posted multiple times in recent months to express her enthusiasm for firearms – and her distaste for gun control.
"It would be horribly tragic if my ability to protect myself or my family were to be taken away, but that's exactly what Democrats are determined to do by banning semi-automatic handguns," she wrote in March, along with an anti-gun control video.
And in January she posted a meme showing a handgun which made fun of President Barack Obama's position on gun control. She captioned it "That's right! #merica.' "
No one is happy about this, the murder of two young women, in any since. The woman had mental problems and yet was able to get a gun. You all have been saying that the problem isn't guns, it's mental issues. So why not get on board and call for stronger background checks so that people with mental problems do not have access to guns?Apparently she didn't use an AR-15 or any type of assault rifle so the left should at least be happy about that.
----------------------------------- she is just a girl V.S..----------------------------------- she oughta get a gun , most guys don't really need a gun in the situation that you describe V.S..As soon as someone uses a firearm to commit murder of innocent people they are breaking the law. They no longer follow the Constitution. Gun rights activist are no more responsible for this women's actions than a Liberal is for Muslim terrorist attacks.
And be sure to thank your republican congressman for blocking the democrats from closing the loophole that would have made it illegal for a private individual to sell John Hinkley a firearm. Also, there is a guy on my block who has had 3 DWI's, and his license has been revoked, and is known for his temper and abusive behavior, but since he has not been convicted of a felony, he can decide to order a firearm by passing a background check, and the next time his wife gets out of line, he just might teach her a lesson.
Right. instead of stopping an alcoholic, unstable, abusive person from getting a gun, The wife is remiss for not strapping on, and having a showdown with him on main street.
You still have the same problem unless she had a criminal record or had been committed to a mental hosptial nothing would have shown up to prevent her from buying a gun even with stronger background checks. We can't as far as I know Involuntarily committ people so the only way to get their mental history in the record is if they committ themselves which few do. There is the major problem here how do you Involuntarily committ people without violating their civil rights and how do you get their mental history in the record for background checks if you don't?No one is happy about this, the murder of two young women, in any since. The woman had mental problems and yet was able to get a gun. You all have been saying that the problem isn't guns, it's mental issues. So why not get on board and call for stronger background checks so that people with mental problems do not have access to guns?Apparently she didn't use an AR-15 or any type of assault rifle so the left should at least be happy about that.
A private citizen would be held responsible for selling a gun to a felon so your premise is BS.In other news millions of other law abiding gun owning citizens go about their daily lives.As soon as someone uses a firearm to commit murder of innocent people they are breaking the law. They no longer follow the Constitution. Gun rights activist are no more responsible for this women's actions than a Liberal is for Muslim terrorist attacks.
And be sure to thank your republican congressman for blocking the democrats from closing the loophole that would have made it illegal for a private individual to sell John Hinkley a firearm. Also, there is a guy on my block who has had 3 DWI's, and his license has been revoked, and is known for his temper and abusive behavior, but since he has not been convicted of a felony, he can decide to order a firearm by passing a background check, and the next time his wife gets out of line, he just might teach her a lesson.
..and not one of these law abiding citizens would have lost anything if it were illegal for a private individual from selling a firearm to a felon or mentally unstable person....
------------------- she oughta use her brains V.S..------------------------- life is full of risks , maybe she should give him the boot ehh ??As soon as someone uses a firearm to commit murder of innocent people they are breaking the law. They no longer follow the Constitution. Gun rights activist are no more responsible for this women's actions than a Liberal is for Muslim terrorist attacks.
And be sure to thank your republican congressman for blocking the democrats from closing the loophole that would have made it illegal for a private individual to sell John Hinkley a firearm. Also, there is a guy on my block who has had 3 DWI's, and his license has been revoked, and is known for his temper and abusive behavior, but since he has not been convicted of a felony, he can decide to order a firearm by passing a background check, and the next time his wife gets out of line, he just might teach her a lesson.
You are absolutely right, Pismoe. If he kills her in a drunken rage, it is her fault for being there.
And what do you think will happen to the person who's name that weapon is regestered to when the [erson they sold it to commits a crime ?A private citizen would be held responsible for selling a gun to a felon so your premise is BS.In other news millions of other law abiding gun owning citizens go about their daily lives.And be sure to thank your republican congressman for blocking the democrats from closing the loophole that would have made it illegal for a private individual to sell John Hinkley a firearm. Also, there is a guy on my block who has had 3 DWI's, and his license has been revoked, and is known for his temper and abusive behavior, but since he has not been convicted of a felony, he can decide to order a firearm by passing a background check, and the next time his wife gets out of line, he just might teach her a lesson.
..and not one of these law abiding citizens would have lost anything if it were illegal for a private individual from selling a firearm to a felon or mentally unstable person....
False. You can pull up Craig's list in your home town and buy whatever you want, no questions asked, because no background check is required by law unless you are a licensed firearms dealer.
You still have the same problem unless she had a criminal record or had been committed to a mental hosptial nothing would have shown up to prevent her from buying a gun even with stronger background checks. We can't as far as I know Involuntarily committ people so the only way to get their mental history in the record is if they committ themselves which few do. There is the major problem here how do you Involuntarily committ people without violating their civil rights and how do you get their mental history in the record for background checks if you don't?No one is happy about this, the murder of two young women, in any since. The woman had mental problems and yet was able to get a gun. You all have been saying that the problem isn't guns, it's mental issues. So why not get on board and call for stronger background checks so that people with mental problems do not have access to guns?Apparently she didn't use an AR-15 or any type of assault rifle so the left should at least be happy about that.
Did you miss what I was saying? Background checks need to be stronger. IMO if someone has any kind of mental health history, they should not be able to get a gun. They should not be able to live in a home where others have guns. We cannot continue to go by the mental health restrictions we have now: obviously they are not strong enough.You still have the same problem unless she had a criminal record or had been committed to a mental hosptial nothing would have shown up to prevent her from buying a gun even with stronger background checks. We can't as far as I know Involuntarily committ people so the only way to get their mental history in the record is if they committ themselves which few do. There is the major problem here how do you Involuntarily committ people without violating their civil rights and how do you get their mental history in the record for background checks if you don't?No one is happy about this, the murder of two young women, in any since. The woman had mental problems and yet was able to get a gun. You all have been saying that the problem isn't guns, it's mental issues. So why not get on board and call for stronger background checks so that people with mental problems do not have access to guns?Apparently she didn't use an AR-15 or any type of assault rifle so the left should at least be happy about that.
Yes I hear make back ground checks stronger all the time what I never hear is specifics as to what that means. How are you going to change the current mental health laws without violating the individuals civil rights? Making the general statement is the easy part figuring out how to legally do it is much harder.Did you miss what I was saying? Background checks need to be stronger. IMO if someone has any kind of mental health history, they should not be able to get a gun. They should not be able to live in a home where others have guns. We cannot continue to go by the mental health restrictions we have now: obviously they are not strong enough.You still have the same problem unless she had a criminal record or had been committed to a mental hosptial nothing would have shown up to prevent her from buying a gun even with stronger background checks. We can't as far as I know Involuntarily committ people so the only way to get their mental history in the record is if they committ themselves which few do. There is the major problem here how do you Involuntarily committ people without violating their civil rights and how do you get their mental history in the record for background checks if you don't?No one is happy about this, the murder of two young women, in any since. The woman had mental problems and yet was able to get a gun. You all have been saying that the problem isn't guns, it's mental issues. So why not get on board and call for stronger background checks so that people with mental problems do not have access to guns?Apparently she didn't use an AR-15 or any type of assault rifle so the left should at least be happy about that.
Yes I hear make back ground checks stronger all the time what I never hear is specifics as to what that means. How are you going to change the current mental health laws without violating the individuals civil rights? Making the general statement is the easy part figuring out how to legally do it is much harder.Did you miss what I was saying? Background checks need to be stronger. IMO if someone has any kind of mental health history, they should not be able to get a gun. They should not be able to live in a home where others have guns. We cannot continue to go by the mental health restrictions we have now: obviously they are not strong enough.You still have the same problem unless she had a criminal record or had been committed to a mental hosptial nothing would have shown up to prevent her from buying a gun even with stronger background checks. We can't as far as I know Involuntarily committ people so the only way to get their mental history in the record is if they committ themselves which few do. There is the major problem here how do you Involuntarily committ people without violating their civil rights and how do you get their mental history in the record for background checks if you don't?No one is happy about this, the murder of two young women, in any since. The woman had mental problems and yet was able to get a gun. You all have been saying that the problem isn't guns, it's mental issues. So why not get on board and call for stronger background checks so that people with mental problems do not have access to guns?Apparently she didn't use an AR-15 or any type of assault rifle so the left should at least be happy about that.
A very, very small percentage of the population is dangerous. An even smaller part of the population acts out violently with the use of firearms.You still have the same problem unless she had a criminal record or had been committed to a mental hosptial nothing would have shown up to prevent her from buying a gun even with stronger background checks. We can't as far as I know Involuntarily committ people so the only way to get their mental history in the record is if they committ themselves which few do. There is the major problem here how do you Involuntarily committ people without violating their civil rights and how do you get their mental history in the record for background checks if you don't?No one is happy about this, the murder of two young women, in any since. The woman had mental problems and yet was able to get a gun. You all have been saying that the problem isn't guns, it's mental issues. So why not get on board and call for stronger background checks so that people with mental problems do not have access to guns?Apparently she didn't use an AR-15 or any type of assault rifle so the left should at least be happy about that.
And that is the center of the problem.
The Right seems to think that liberals are trying to stop mass shootings, and certifiably insane by passing new gun laws. We know that both of these things can not be stopped. Mass shooters, gangsters, and crazy people are going to do their thing, and all we can do is to try to stop them.
What is much worse, is the day-today domestic violence that happens all over America, every day. I'm talking about husbands and wives, and neighbors, and road rage people. I'm talking about drunks, and crack heads, and jealous husbands, and teenagers who can't hold their liquor. Everyone on this board knows someone who is unpredictable, hair triggered, and unstable, to one extent or another. Hell, Jerry Lee Lewis once got drunk and shot a friend in the shoulder with a 45. Elvis used to shoot his TV sets, and always performed in his later years with a pistol in his boot. We had a love triangle in my retirement community that was resolved last year with a 1911. A friend of mine had a 15 year old daughter, who, after he dressed her down for sneaking out to see her boyfriend, went directly out to his car where she knew that he kept a gun, and killed herself. A deputy was killed in my county 2 months ago while responding to an elderly welfare check, only to be shot by the person he was there to check on, through the front door. He was 82 years old, and damned near deaf and senile, but, by golly, he had a gun, even if drooled on it a lot.
I don't have the complete answer to this. All I know is that far too many people in this country are armed and dangerous. I am a member of the Sheriff's Auxiliary Volunteers, and I patrol. You can take this to the bank. Cops' biggest fear is being called to the scene of a domestic dispute. It is the most dangerous call they have to respond to. Some drunk or crackhead just may decide to off a pig, and his wife, as well. He will, of course, be really sincerely sorry about it when he sobers up.
A very, very small percentage of the population is dangerous. An even smaller part of the population acts out violently with the use of firearms.You still have the same problem unless she had a criminal record or had been committed to a mental hosptial nothing would have shown up to prevent her from buying a gun even with stronger background checks. We can't as far as I know Involuntarily committ people so the only way to get their mental history in the record is if they committ themselves which few do. There is the major problem here how do you Involuntarily committ people without violating their civil rights and how do you get their mental history in the record for background checks if you don't?No one is happy about this, the murder of two young women, in any since. The woman had mental problems and yet was able to get a gun. You all have been saying that the problem isn't guns, it's mental issues. So why not get on board and call for stronger background checks so that people with mental problems do not have access to guns?Apparently she didn't use an AR-15 or any type of assault rifle so the left should at least be happy about that.
And that is the center of the problem.
The Right seems to think that liberals are trying to stop mass shootings, and certifiably insane by passing new gun laws. We know that both of these things can not be stopped. Mass shooters, gangsters, and crazy people are going to do their thing, and all we can do is to try to stop them.
What is much worse, is the day-today domestic violence that happens all over America, every day. I'm talking about husbands and wives, and neighbors, and road rage people. I'm talking about drunks, and crack heads, and jealous husbands, and teenagers who can't hold their liquor. Everyone on this board knows someone who is unpredictable, hair triggered, and unstable, to one extent or another. Hell, Jerry Lee Lewis once got drunk and shot a friend in the shoulder with a 45. Elvis used to shoot his TV sets, and always performed in his later years with a pistol in his boot. We had a love triangle in my retirement community that was resolved last year with a 1911. A friend of mine had a 15 year old daughter, who, after he dressed her down for sneaking out to see her boyfriend, went directly out to his car where she knew that he kept a gun, and killed herself. A deputy was killed in my county 2 months ago while responding to an elderly welfare check, only to be shot by the person he was there to check on, through the front door. He was 82 years old, and damned near deaf and senile, but, by golly, he had a gun, even if drooled on it a lot.
I don't have the complete answer to this. All I know is that far too many people in this country are armed and dangerous. I am a member of the Sheriff's Auxiliary Volunteers, and I patrol. You can take this to the bank. Cops' biggest fear is being called to the scene of a domestic dispute. It is the most dangerous call they have to respond to. Some drunk or crackhead just may decide to off a pig, and his wife, as well. He will, of course, be really sincerely sorry about it when he sobers up.
So, Putting more laws on the books will do nothing to lessen crime rates in this country. ''Guns" are not the problem, the lack of core family values are the root of criminal behavior. A More controlling federal government can't possibly replace the family...
But mass killings represent less than 1% of all murders. And less than 1% of all legal gun owners will ever use their guns to commit murderWell, 'logic' would seem to say that if military style semi automatics and handguns are not generally available their use in mass killings will decrease.Our violent crime rate is down to 1960 levels, while our society has added millions of guns. So, if you want to use "logic" on the question, you probably should rethink your answer.
I can't because it is virtually impossible to sell a firearm in my state without a licensed dealer being involvedA private citizen would be held responsible for selling a gun to a felon so your premise is BS.In other news millions of other law abiding gun owning citizens go about their daily lives.As soon as someone uses a firearm to commit murder of innocent people they are breaking the law. They no longer follow the Constitution. Gun rights activist are no more responsible for this women's actions than a Liberal is for Muslim terrorist attacks.
And be sure to thank your republican congressman for blocking the democrats from closing the loophole that would have made it illegal for a private individual to sell John Hinkley a firearm. Also, there is a guy on my block who has had 3 DWI's, and his license has been revoked, and is known for his temper and abusive behavior, but since he has not been convicted of a felony, he can decide to order a firearm by passing a background check, and the next time his wife gets out of line, he just might teach her a lesson.
..and not one of these law abiding citizens would have lost anything if it were illegal for a private individual from selling a firearm to a felon or mentally unstable person....
False. You can pull up Craig's list in your home town and buy whatever you want, no questions asked, because no background check is required by law unless you are a licensed firearms dealer. The democrats tried to plug that loophole but the republicans blocked it.
Or she could have just drowned the kids in a bath tub like Andrea YatesAnother perfect example for why we need stricter gun control; had this woman not had guns, those two beautiful young women would still be alive. It's so sad. They are just considered collateral damage in the war to preserve a literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment at whatever cost
If we didn't allow crazy people to have tubs her kids would be alive today too?
And as far as I can tell there is no right to have a tubOr she could have just drowned the kids in a bath tub like Andrea Yates
and yates claimed her Jesus told her to do it!!
Yes..and since Jesus never permitted murder...she didn't do it in his name...she should have joined Islam.......
Jezus didn't permit divorce, so I guess that means there's a lot of fake Christian's out there.
Um, we had all these mass shootings, nothing like that ever happened in the early sixties until the 1966 TU clock tower shooter. He may have been ill, and so what? I don't care. All those defenseless kids murdered by a mad man, something is wrong here. They say, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is a sign of insanity, Let's let crazy people get guns and expect non crazy people to stop them. Right. That doesn't work, it's been proved over and over again.Imagine this: guns are a problem. And, they are the solution? We need to reconfigure the logic here, guns are a problem,adding more guns just add to that. This is a circular debate. We stop needless gun violence by removing guns from the populace. Sure, we have people that abuse autos, knives or fill in the blank, all worthy of note. One thing at a time, please.
Our violent crime rate is down to 1960 levels, while our society has added millions of guns. So, if you want to use "logic" on the question, you probably should rethink your answer.
Mark
