Trump: Deadly Texas Shooting Isn’t A Guns Issue, It’s A Mental Health Problem

[NightFox]

So a rifle that would hit from 200 yards off ? Maybe something along the lines of an old bolt action rifle ? That’s what got Kennedy. Reagon was hit with a .22 revolver, or here, dude could have just bought an AMC gremlin, waited for noon, pointed it at the front door and hit the gas. Or just made a bomb.

Nothing will stop every maniac. Your argument is old and I'm yawning. There is no need of us having semiautomatic rifles that shoot dozens of bullets per minute. Crazy people can do too much damage in too short a time.

LOL, yeah maybe we should pass a law that psychopaths can only use pump action shotguns (sawed off barrels optional) and semi automatic pistols while performing their "duties", I'm sure that'll make them think twice before going on killing sprees.

Does imposing restrictions on the natural rights of peaceful people pursuant to stopping the violent ones from being violent actually work in the fantasy world that you inhabit?

I'm not fantasizing, but if you care at all about the innocent lives lost in the past month to semiautomatic massacres, you'l listen. These mass shootings in LasVegas and yesterday in Texas were not related to our war against terrorism, but were just plain homegrown crazy people who think they can scratch their itch by grabbing a lethal weapon and opening fire on people they don't even know to feel powerful.

Uh-huh and how does your proposal in any way deal with the "crazy people who think they can scratch their itch by grabbing a lethal weapon" ? I never ceases to amaze me how those that claim to "care" can never muster the intellectual fortitude to look past the symptoms for the root cause while at the same time waving around their pom-poms for government to "solve the problem" by stomping all over everybody's individual rights, the intellectual laziness it takes to behave in that fashion is just stupefying.

Without the weapon, a lot of those people would not be dead today.

So what are you proposing ? a complete ban on weapons?

Do you care?

As a proponent of the non-aggression principle I'm the only one of the two of us that cares, I care about the advancement of non-aggression AND individual liberty, you don't appear to care about either one, since all you want to do is impose restrictions on the individual liberty of peaceful citizens at the point of a government gun.

Today I am proposing a ban on semiautomatic rifles that shoot dozens of bullets per minute.

Again, how does that address the problem of "crazy people who think they can scratch their itch by grabbing a lethal weapon" ? Or are you so naïve that you believe that psychopaths intent on mass killings are going to be deterred from acquiring the means to carry out their intentions simply because the government issues an opinion on a piece of paper back up with the threat of force (aka "a law")?

I care about individual liberty, but with rights come responsibilities, and sometimes our responsibilities include curbing our rights for the sake of the common good.

It doesn't appear that you give a damn about individual liberty since you consistently want to diminish it whenever faced with public policy questions, your answers always seem to revolve around government coercion without a second thought regarding the implications to the individual liberty of yourself or others.

Your definition of "common good" appears to include only what YOU want without regard to the wishes of others and you seem perfectly willing to get what you want by using government force as the sole means to achieve it.

You can keep your deer rifle for killing animals, your shotgun for chasing off intruders, your handgun for personal protection on the iffy streets of your hometown.

Why thank you for your permission to exercise the rights that I was born with but apparently you missed the fact that neither I nor anybody else require it.

AR anythings are excessive and extreme and do not belong in the hands of civilians.

LOL but they're apparently fine in the hands of the agents of the most blood drenched institution in human history...

One wonders what boundaries you place on what "belongs" in the hands of civilians and what doesn't.

 

[Brain357]

Machine guns are heavily regulated because they can kill lots of people really fast. Obviously the same can be said about semi-autos with high capacity magazines. They should also be heavily regulated.

Look at Chicago gun laws and how many people are killed, then you would not make such horrid analogies!

chicago doesn't have a wall. Easy to get guns in and out.

 

[Kosh]

Machine guns are heavily regulated because they can kill lots of people really fast. Obviously the same can be said about semi-autos with high capacity magazines. They should also be heavily regulated.

Look at Chicago gun laws and how many people are killed, then you would not make such horrid analogies!

chicago doesn't have a wall. Easy to get guns in and out.

And you see how you far left nuts wanting gun control with open borders will work?

 

[Brain357]

When I learned the Sheriff's Department released the fact the kiiler's former in laws attended church there, it struck that one out.

So you see nothing short of confiscation and eliminating the 2nd amendment will make the far left happy!

So let us stop pretending that the far left wants anything else.

As no new law or existing law could have stopped this!

Only mass killers need these weapons for mass killing. Why make it easy to legally buy them?

Show how it is easy for them to buy? Show what law would fix this?

Show how having an open border will stop such acts?

Go to any gun store and buy them. Very easy.
What does the border have to do with it?

See how the far left can not defend their religious narratives?

They can not defend their stance, just run the same old debunked religious narratives..

So you got anything that would prevent this? or will you continue run the debunked far left narrative?

Must have missed this man was dishonorable discharged which means he can not buy..

Another far left drone post fail!

Wow so one out of how many actually couldn't legally own the gun? Crazy. Luckily the NRA still makes it easy to get them as they are everywhere. They should be heavily regulated like machine guns, then it might be a story like this rather than a slaughter.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/...n-attack-masonic-center-still-jail/552509001/

 

[Brain357]

Machine guns are heavily regulated because they can kill lots of people really fast. Obviously the same can be said about semi-autos with high capacity magazines. They should also be heavily regulated.

Look at Chicago gun laws and how many people are killed, then you would not make such horrid analogies!

chicago doesn't have a wall. Easy to get guns in and out.

And you see how you far left nuts wanting gun control with open borders will work?

Hey I'd gladly trade you a wall for really strong gun control. But most guns come from here. And if the gun were coming illegally from across borders there is a chance they would be stopped. The problem is the vast majority of these nuts are legally armed with mass killing weapons.

 

[OldLady]

Yes you far left drones do not want such things as you are the party of NO!

Now can any far left drone point to any law that would have stopped this?

Not far left but I cannot.As I wrote, I do not believe any firearm law will prevent actions these, and it may have been the type of illness thatt masks the symptoms in large part. BPD, PD.

Yes you are far left! Do not pretend you are not!

Having gun control laws with open borders is not smart no matter how the far left wants to spin it.

Criminals do not obey the laws, so making laws that they will not obey will not help matters. It comes to enforcement and penalties. But even then that is not a deterrent. But the far left does not want the police to enforce. So what will be acceptable to the far left?

Law enforcement, properly funded and trained.

No the far left does not want that! They want only the criminals to have guns..

However show where even this would have prevented this shooting!

When I learned the Sheriff's Department released the fact the kiiler's former in laws attended church there, it struck that one out.

They probably weren't on the best terms, considering what he did to their daughter and grandchild. Just supposing. But if it were only that, why didn't he just go gunning for them in their backyard? The church may have sheltered her after he assaulted her. Or in some other way "judged" him. Why did it take him so long to react though? This happened years ago.

 

[Brain357]

Coward republicans have called it a mental health problem for years. They obviously don't do anything about that problem either. The corpses pile up while they do nothing.

 

[fncceo]

They let the law against some of those semi's expire.

Those particular laws were stupid. They banned some weapons not based on caliber or rate of fire, but on cosmetic features.

However, I fully endorse Democrats taking a radical stand on gun control in the forthcoming election. It should work out well for them.

I know what you're thinking, but I believe you are wrong. If it were actually about the will of the people, fruitcakes would not be able to buy an AR anything at Walmart.

Again, the Brady act was supposed to fix that. It did not.

I believe I already said the legislature hasn't done anything of use, yet. It is past time they did.

And I'm inviting the Democrats to put all their efforts behind gun control.

 

[Kosh]

Coward republicans have called it a mental health problem for years. They obviously don't do anything about that problem either. The corpses pile up while they do nothing.

Show all the laws the far left has implemented to deal with it..

 

[Peach]

Not far left but I cannot.As I wrote, I do not believe any firearm law will prevent actions these, and it may have been the type of illness thatt masks the symptoms in large part. BPD, PD.

Yes you are far left! Do not pretend you are not!

Having gun control laws with open borders is not smart no matter how the far left wants to spin it.

Criminals do not obey the laws, so making laws that they will not obey will not help matters. It comes to enforcement and penalties. But even then that is not a deterrent. But the far left does not want the police to enforce. So what will be acceptable to the far left?

Law enforcement, properly funded and trained.

No the far left does not want that! They want only the criminals to have guns..

However show where even this would have prevented this shooting!

When I learned the Sheriff's Department released the fact the kiiler's former in laws attended church there, it struck that one out.

They probably weren't on the best terms, considering what he did to their daughter and grandchild. Just supposing. But if it were only that, why didn't he just go gunning for them in their backyard? The church may have sheltered her after he assaulted her. Or in some other way "judged" him. Why did it take him so long to react though? This happened years ago.

The mind of the mentallly ill works in odd ways. He wasn't even registered to vote.

 

[Kosh]

Machine guns are heavily regulated because they can kill lots of people really fast. Obviously the same can be said about semi-autos with high capacity magazines. They should also be heavily regulated.

Look at Chicago gun laws and how many people are killed, then you would not make such horrid analogies!

chicago doesn't have a wall. Easy to get guns in and out.

And you see how you far left nuts wanting gun control with open borders will work?

Hey I'd gladly trade you a wall for really strong gun control. But most guns come from here. And if the gun were coming illegally from across borders there is a chance they would be stopped. The problem is the vast majority of these nuts are legally armed with mass killing weapons.

Yes I know you want to end the 2nd Amendment it is in your programming!

 

[Kosh]

Yes you are far left! Do not pretend you are not!

Having gun control laws with open borders is not smart no matter how the far left wants to spin it.

Criminals do not obey the laws, so making laws that they will not obey will not help matters. It comes to enforcement and penalties. But even then that is not a deterrent. But the far left does not want the police to enforce. So what will be acceptable to the far left?

Law enforcement, properly funded and trained.

No the far left does not want that! They want only the criminals to have guns..

However show where even this would have prevented this shooting!

When I learned the Sheriff's Department released the fact the kiiler's former in laws attended church there, it struck that one out.

They probably weren't on the best terms, considering what he did to their daughter and grandchild. Just supposing. But if it were only that, why didn't he just go gunning for them in their backyard? The church may have sheltered her after he assaulted her. Or in some other way "judged" him. Why did it take him so long to react though? This happened years ago.

The mind of the mentallly ill works in odd ways. He wasn't even registered to vote.

So now the far left thinks anyone not registered vote is mentally ill?

 

[Brain357]

Coward republicans have called it a mental health problem for years. They obviously don't do anything about that problem either. The corpses pile up while they do nothing.

Show all the laws the far left has implemented to deal with it..

They want to do gun control which makes a lot more sense since that is what has worked. Look at other countries. With strong gun control they don't have regular mass shootings like we do. Republicans control everything, they need to do something!

If we still had the magazine limits and assault rifle ban there would be fewer corpses, repubs and the NRA changed that though.

 

[OldLady]

Nothing will stop every maniac. Your argument is old and I'm yawning. There is no need of us having semiautomatic rifles that shoot dozens of bullets per minute. Crazy people can do too much damage in too short a time.

LOL, yeah maybe we should pass a law that psychopaths can only use pump action shotguns (sawed off barrels optional) and semi automatic pistols while performing their "duties", I'm sure that'll make them think twice before going on killing sprees.

Does imposing restrictions on the natural rights of peaceful people pursuant to stopping the violent ones from being violent actually work in the fantasy world that you inhabit?

I'm not fantasizing, but if you care at all about the innocent lives lost in the past month to semiautomatic massacres, you'l listen. These mass shootings in LasVegas and yesterday in Texas were not related to our war against terrorism, but were just plain homegrown crazy people who think they can scratch their itch by grabbing a lethal weapon and opening fire on people they don't even know to feel powerful.

Uh-huh and how does your proposal in any way deal with the "crazy people who think they can scratch their itch by grabbing a lethal weapon" ? I never ceases to amaze me how those that claim to "care" can never muster the intellectual fortitude to look past the symptoms for the root cause while at the same time waving around their pom-poms for government to "solve the problem" by stomping all over everybody's individual rights, the intellectual laziness it takes to behave in that fashion is just stupefying.

Without the weapon, a lot of those people would not be dead today.

So what are you proposing ? a complete ban on weapons?

Do you care?

As a proponent of the non-aggression principle I'm the only one of the two of us that cares, I care about the advancement of non-aggression AND individual liberty, you don't appear to care about either one, since all you want to do is impose restrictions on the individual liberty of peaceful citizens at the point of a government gun.

Today I am proposing a ban on semiautomatic rifles that shoot dozens of bullets per minute.

Again, how does that address the problem of "crazy people who think they can scratch their itch by grabbing a lethal weapon" ? Or are you so naïve that you believe that psychopaths intent on mass killings are going to be deterred from acquiring the means to carry out their intentions simply because the government issues an opinion on a piece of paper back up with the threat of force (aka "a law")?

I care about individual liberty, but with rights come responsibilities, and sometimes our responsibilities include curbing our rights for the sake of the common good.

It doesn't appear that you give a damn about individual liberty since you consistently want to diminish it whenever faced with public policy questions, your answers always seem to revolve around government coercion without a second thought regarding the implications to the individual liberty of yourself or others.

Your definition of "common good" appears to include only what YOU want without regard to the wishes of others and you seem perfectly willing to get what you want by using government force as the sole means to achieve it.

You can keep your deer rifle for killing animals, your shotgun for chasing off intruders, your handgun for personal protection on the iffy streets of your hometown.

Why thank you for your permission to exercise the rights that I was born with but apparently you missed the fact that neither I nor anybody else require it.

AR anythings are excessive and extreme and do not belong in the hands of civilians.

LOL but they're apparently fine in the hands of the agents of the most blood drenched institution in human history...

One wonders what boundaries you place on what "belongs" in the hands of civilians and what doesn't.

Your definition of "common good" appears to include only what YOU want without regard to the wishes of others
Really? You think I'm the only one who "wishes" my fellow citizens were not armed with semiautomatic rifles like AR's? I'm the only one who "wishes" people were not easily and legally armed with such killing machines?

I don't know what you're referring to with "the most blood drenched institution in human history." Guessing the government, which you fantasize you can overthrow with your AR's? Only a guess.

 

[Peach]

Law enforcement, properly funded and trained.

No the far left does not want that! They want only the criminals to have guns..

However show where even this would have prevented this shooting!

When I learned the Sheriff's Department released the fact the kiiler's former in laws attended church there, it struck that one out.

They probably weren't on the best terms, considering what he did to their daughter and grandchild. Just supposing. But if it were only that, why didn't he just go gunning for them in their backyard? The church may have sheltered her after he assaulted her. Or in some other way "judged" him. Why did it take him so long to react though? This happened years ago.

The mind of the mentallly ill works in odd ways. He wasn't even registered to vote.

So now the far left thinks anyone not registered vote is mentally ill?

No, but it works against a political reason.

 

[Kosh]

Not far left but I cannot.As I wrote, I do not believe any firearm law will prevent actions these, and it may have been the type of illness thatt masks the symptoms in large part. BPD, PD.

Yes you are far left! Do not pretend you are not!

Having gun control laws with open borders is not smart no matter how the far left wants to spin it.

Criminals do not obey the laws, so making laws that they will not obey will not help matters. It comes to enforcement and penalties. But even then that is not a deterrent. But the far left does not want the police to enforce. So what will be acceptable to the far left?

Law enforcement, properly funded and trained.

No the far left does not want that! They want only the criminals to have guns..

However show where even this would have prevented this shooting!

When I learned the Sheriff's Department released the fact the kiiler's former in laws attended church there, it struck that one out.

They probably weren't on the best terms, considering what he did to their daughter and grandchild. Just supposing. But if it were only that, why didn't he just go gunning for them in their backyard? The church may have sheltered her after he assaulted her. Or in some other way "judged" him. Why did it take him so long to react though? This happened years ago.

He was a crazed man that obviously had mental issues, that is why he was dishonorably discharged from the military.

The question is when did he get this way and why was there no help for it?

 

[OldLady]

They let the law against some of those semi's expire.

Those particular laws were stupid. They banned some weapons not based on caliber or rate of fire, but on cosmetic features.

However, I fully endorse Democrats taking a radical stand on gun control in the forthcoming election. It should work out well for them.

I know what you're thinking, but I believe you are wrong. If it were actually about the will of the people, fruitcakes would not be able to buy an AR anything at Walmart.

Again, the Brady act was supposed to fix that. It did not.

I believe I already said the legislature hasn't done anything of use, yet. It is past time they did.

And I'm inviting the Democrats to put all their efforts behind gun control.

As I said, I know why, but as I also said, YOU ARE WRONG.

 

[Brain357]

Machine guns are heavily regulated because they can kill lots of people really fast. Obviously the same can be said about semi-autos with high capacity magazines. They should also be heavily regulated.

Look at Chicago gun laws and how many people are killed, then you would not make such horrid analogies!

chicago doesn't have a wall. Easy to get guns in and out.

And you see how you far left nuts wanting gun control with open borders will work?

Hey I'd gladly trade you a wall for really strong gun control. But most guns come from here. And if the gun were coming illegally from across borders there is a chance they would be stopped. The problem is the vast majority of these nuts are legally armed with mass killing weapons.

Yes I know you want to end the 2nd Amendment it is in your programming!

And you like arming crazies as well as possible for the most deaths. it's in your programming.

 

[Kosh]

No the far left does not want that! They want only the criminals to have guns..

However show where even this would have prevented this shooting!

When I learned the Sheriff's Department released the fact the kiiler's former in laws attended church there, it struck that one out.

They probably weren't on the best terms, considering what he did to their daughter and grandchild. Just supposing. But if it were only that, why didn't he just go gunning for them in their backyard? The church may have sheltered her after he assaulted her. Or in some other way "judged" him. Why did it take him so long to react though? This happened years ago.

The mind of the mentallly ill works in odd ways. He wasn't even registered to vote.

So now the far left thinks anyone not registered vote is mentally ill?

No, but it works against a political reason.

No it does not, you do not have to be registered to ally with a political party philosophy. Many far left drones did not vote or register, yet still push the debunked far left narratives.

But only a far left drone would see it that way!

 

[fncceo]

As I said, I know why, but as I also said, YOU ARE WRONG.

Only time will tell... but History is on my side.