So, you want the NRA/pro-gun side to compromise...?

[martybegan]

Yes, I did.... I'm sorry you didn't understand it.

Had they done a REAL background check, like job or a credit card company would do, they'd have found out that Holmes or Loughner were on suspension from their schools because their erratic behavior. That would have been a big red flag tonot sell them a gun.

So you want a background check that includes your school records on which a suspension is a prohibiting act ?

Personally, I want all private guns confiscated because private citizens don't need them.

But if you are going to absolutely insist on letting people have them, yes, I want to make DAMNED SURE they aren't crazy.

If you got suspended from school because you were acting so crazy they had to ban you from campus (again- Cho, Loughner and Holmes all fell into this category), that should have at least held up gun owership.

So you are in favor of a giant spike in crime, gestapo like tactics to raid houses for guns, an armed ruling class of government agents, and a 2nd american civil war?

 

[JoeB131]

Someone who is so crazy they are barred from school and no ajudication...suspension?

Therein lies the problem.

If you're that crazy.....adjudicate them as such and no NICS....no gun.

Or we just don't sell them a gun until they prove they AREN'T crazy.

Ajudication is the means to not sell them a gun.

We have a mental ajudication problem.

I have no quams limiting the freedoms of a proven whack job.

NO, we have a "way too easy to get a gun" problem.

Crazy people without guns aren't a problem. They're crazy, but they are mostly harmless.

True, we do a horrible job in treating them, mostly because unlike selling guns, no one is really making obscene profits helping them.

They should prove they AREN'T a whack job before we give them a hand-held murder machine.

Of course, given the posts of gun whacks on this board, that would be a high standard to meet.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Personally, I want all private guns confiscated because private citizens don't need them.

.

So you are in favor of a giant spike in crime, gestapo like tactics to raid houses for guns, an armed ruling class of government agents, and a 2nd american civil war?

1) We'd have less crime. Every other country that has banned guns has proven this.

2) We already have gestapo like tactics to raid houses for drugs, and you guys in the right are fine with that.

3) If anyone is willing to fight a "civil war" over their penis substitutes, I'm all for getting them out of the gene pool.

 

[martybegan]

[

Personally, I want all private guns confiscated because private citizens don't need them.

.

So you are in favor of a giant spike in crime, gestapo like tactics to raid houses for guns, an armed ruling class of government agents, and a 2nd american civil war?

1) We'd have less crime. Every other country that has banned guns has proven this.

2) We already have gestapo like tactics to raid houses for drugs, and you guys in the right are fine with that.

3) If anyone is willing to fight a "civil war" over their penis substitutes, I'm all for getting them out of the gene pool.

Cough...Mexico....Cough Cough....

 

[JoeB131]

So you are in favor of a giant spike in crime, gestapo like tactics to raid houses for guns, an armed ruling class of government agents, and a 2nd american civil war?

1) We'd have less crime. Every other country that has banned guns has proven this.

2) We already have gestapo like tactics to raid houses for drugs, and you guys in the right are fine with that.

3) If anyone is willing to fight a "civil war" over their penis substitutes, I'm all for getting them out of the gene pool.

Cough...Mexico....Cough Cough....

Wow... so you have to use third world countries as examples?

I know, I should have qualified "industrialized advanced democracies"...

Of course, Mexico's big complaint is that they try to ban guns, and we dump millions of htem into their country every year illegally. But we can't talk about that.

 

[martybegan]

1) We'd have less crime. Every other country that has banned guns has proven this.

2) We already have gestapo like tactics to raid houses for drugs, and you guys in the right are fine with that.

3) If anyone is willing to fight a "civil war" over their penis substitutes, I'm all for getting them out of the gene pool.

Cough...Mexico....Cough Cough....

Wow... so you have to use third world countries as examples?

I know, I should have qualified "industrialized advanced democracies"...

Of course, Mexico's big complaint is that they try to ban guns, and we dump millions of htem into their country every year illegally. But we can't talk about that.

Most industrialized advanced democracies are also monolithic cultures, without the diversity we have. They also do not have the overall rate of minority crime we have.

Your chance of dying from gun violence outside the ghetto is probably about the same compared to your disarmed pussy paradises.

 

[JoeB131]

Most industrialized advanced democracies are also monolithic cultures, without the diversity we have. They also do not have the overall rate of minority crime we have.

Your chance of dying from gun violence outside the ghetto is probably about the same compared to your disarmed pussy paradises.

Oh, it's "those people"....

My next door neighbor in my sissy-white Republican suburb blew his brains out with gun.

Please don't tell me that this is a problem limited to "those people".

Fact is- No guns = less crime less violence.


But do keep drinking the gun industry koolaid.

 

[martybegan]

Most industrialized advanced democracies are also monolithic cultures, without the diversity we have. They also do not have the overall rate of minority crime we have.

Your chance of dying from gun violence outside the ghetto is probably about the same compared to your disarmed pussy paradises.

Oh, it's "those people"....

My next door neighbor in my sissy-white Republican suburb blew his brains out with gun.

Please don't tell me that this is a problem limited to "those people".

Fact is- No guns = less crime less violence.


But do keep drinking the gun industry koolaid.

Its not my fault or any gunowner's fault your neighbor couldnt take the heat of life.

Suicide is for pussies, pure and simple.

And no guns = more crime by bigger people who now know they can get away with beating someone up without fear of harm. Britian may have less gun deaths, but thier assualt rate is pretty damn high, because the knobs know all they will get is a slap on the wrist.

Joe wants the return to the good old days, where some 250lb brute knows he can rape a woman without the threat of being shot. Maybe its his fantasy to finally be able to rape with abandon.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Someone clearly doesn't understand that there must be legislation specifying that people that have been suspended from school due to "acting crazy" be denied a firearm before they can be denied a firearm.

Until that point, it doesnt matter if the background check finds such a thing.

 

[JoeB131]

Someone clearly doesn't understand that there must be legislation specifying that people that have been suspended from school due to "acting crazy" be denied a firearm before they can be denied a firearm.

Until that point, it doesnt matter if the background check finds such a thing.

Then let's get that legislation.

Or a better idea. You sell someone a gun, and he goes and mows down a bunch of preschoolers.

You are held financially liable, the people who made that gun are held financially liable.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Then let's get that legislation.

Or a better idea. You sell someone a gun, and he goes and mows down a bunch of preschoolers.

You are held financially liable, the people who made that gun are held financially liable.

Liable for someone else's criminal acts ?

 

[JoeB131]

Then let's get that legislation.

Or a better idea. You sell someone a gun, and he goes and mows down a bunch of preschoolers.

You are held financially liable, the people who made that gun are held financially liable.

Liable for someone else's criminal acts ?

It's called "accessory before the fact".

The people who gave the Columbine Shooters guns are in jail today. I say just expand it. Gun sellers and gun makers, too.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The people who gave the Columbine Shooters guns are in jail today.

The people who procured the guns willingly and wantonly broke the law.

 

[squeeze berry]

Someone clearly doesn't understand that there must be legislation specifying that people that have been suspended from school due to "acting crazy" be denied a firearm before they can be denied a firearm.

Until that point, it doesnt matter if the background check finds such a thing.

Then let's get that legislation.

Or a better idea. You sell someone a gun, and he goes and mows down a bunch of preschoolers.

You are held financially liable, the people who made that gun are held financially liable.

so you lend someone a knife with the expectation they are going to peel potatoes and they kill someone with the knife and you are responsible?

 

[JoeB131]

The people who gave the Columbine Shooters guns are in jail today.

The people who procured the guns willingly and wantonly broke the law.

Do you really think the guys who sold Dylan and Kleibold those guns thought they wee going to shoot up a school?

Nope. Probably didn't think of it at all. They just saw an oppurtunity to make a quick buck.

The big corporations that sell to Nancy Lanza, knowing she is batshit crazy and raised a crazy kid, should be held to the same standard.

 

[GuyPinestra]

The people who gave the Columbine Shooters guns are in jail today.

The people who procured the guns willingly and wantonly broke the law.

Do you really think the guys who sold Dylan and Kleibold those guns thought they wee going to shoot up a school?

Didn't matter what they thought, what they DID was illegal.

Nope. Probably didn't think of it at all. They just saw an oppurtunity to make a quick buck.

The big corporations that sell to Nancy Lanza, knowing she is batshit crazy and raised a crazy kid, should be held to the same standard.

How would they "know she is batshit crazy", Joe? How would they know she "raised a crazy kid."?

Joe, YOU are the one who is batshit crazy. YOU are the one wanting to destroy the Constitution based on your own illogical fears.

 

[GuyPinestra]

What are the pro gunners giving up in the first place?

:roll:
You want them to compromise on universal background checks, 'assault weapon' bans and 'hi-cap' magazine bans.
What do you have to offer in return for their compromise on these issues?

Nothing. All those things sound more than reasonable to me...

Of course they do, you're a liberal control freak.

Thank God you don't live HERE...

 

[JoeB131]

Joe, YOU are the one who is batshit crazy. YOU are the one wanting to destroy the Constitution based on your own illogical fears.

11,101 people were murdered with guns last year.

We do a whole bunch of shit to defend ourselves against unlikely terrorists attacks because terrorists killed 3000 people once.

Since 9/11, 270,000 Americans have been killed with guns. That's 90 9/11's.

And we've WEAKENED our gun laws since then.

That's batshit crazy.

 

[Nosmo King]

:roll:
You want them to compromise on universal background checks, 'assault weapon' bans and 'hi-cap' magazine bans.
What do you have to offer in return for their compromise on these issues?

Nothing. All those things sound more than reasonable to me...

Of course they do, you're a liberal control freak.

Thank God you don't live HERE...

What's your objection to back ground checks? If guns don't kill, so the saying goes, people kill, why not stem the tide of people killing people? Should people be checked for competency before driving? Cars kill more than guns, so the sophistry goes. But a competency test for a driver's license isn't a Liberal control freak action, is it?

Where does being a Liberal control freak end and a lawless Anarchist begin? Is that someplace close to the national headquarters of the NRA?

 

[M14 Shooter]

What are the pro gunners giving up in the first place?

:roll:
You want them to compromise on universal background checks, 'assault weapon' bans and 'hi-cap' magazine bans.
What do you have to offer in return for their compromise on these issues?

Nothing. All those things sound more than reasonable to me...

Then you arent really looking for them to compromise, and clearly illustrate why they should not.
Thank you.