What right does he have to demand I lose my rights?

[JoeB131]

[

I guess his crystal ball was in the shop that day. That you want to bankrupt a business because the owner is not clairvoyant speaks volumes. You can threaten someone's children if they don't hire who you say they should hire, because you claim to be all about the working man. But when the working man does everything by the book, and an unmedicated lunatic goes crazy, you want to hold that working man responsible. Nice double standard there.

So would you push to prosecute and/or bankrupt the people who sold him the knives he used to stab 3 people to death?

Would depend on what kind of knives they were. If they were ordinary kitchen knives, meh, not so much. If the were big old hunting knives, maybe. He probably got those the same place he got the guns.

the thing was, he sold a death-machine to an unmedicated lunatic.

And, yes, I'm totally about making examples of people. Whether it be some fat yuppie cow who hires scabs or some unscrupulous businessman who sells guns to crazy people.

 

[Iceweasel]

Would depend on what kind of knives they were. If they were ordinary kitchen knives, meh, not so much. If the were big old hunting knives, maybe. He probably got those the same place he got the guns.

the thing was, he sold a death-machine to an unmedicated lunatic.

And, yes, I'm totally about making examples of people. Whether it be some fat yuppie cow who hires scabs or some unscrupulous businessman who sells guns to crazy people.

Yep, I would much prefer getting slaughtered by a Ken Onion butcher knife than a Bowie knife, good point.

So the guy's shrink and LEOs couldn't evaluate him as mentally incompetent but the store clerk should have? Another insightful point. You're like a fountain of critical thought.

 

[Skull Pilot]

[

I guess his crystal ball was in the shop that day. That you want to bankrupt a business because the owner is not clairvoyant speaks volumes. You can threaten someone's children if they don't hire who you say they should hire, because you claim to be all about the working man. But when the working man does everything by the book, and an unmedicated lunatic goes crazy, you want to hold that working man responsible. Nice double standard there.

So would you push to prosecute and/or bankrupt the people who sold him the knives he used to stab 3 people to death?

Would depend on what kind of knives they were. If they were ordinary kitchen knives, meh, not so much. If the were big old hunting knives, maybe. He probably got those the same place he got the guns.

the thing was, he sold a death-machine to an unmedicated lunatic.

And, yes, I'm totally about making examples of people. Whether it be some fat yuppie cow who hires scabs or some unscrupulous businessman who sells guns to crazy people.

So answer the question.


How aside from mandatory psych evals and the subpoenaing of private records do you propose we prevent crazy people from getting guns and what if a person goes crazy after he buys a gun?

 

[JoeB131]

Would depend on what kind of knives they were. If they were ordinary kitchen knives, meh, not so much. If the were big old hunting knives, maybe. He probably got those the same place he got the guns.

the thing was, he sold a death-machine to an unmedicated lunatic.

And, yes, I'm totally about making examples of people. Whether it be some fat yuppie cow who hires scabs or some unscrupulous businessman who sells guns to crazy people.

Yep, I would much prefer getting slaughtered by a Ken Onion butcher knife than a Bowie knife, good point.

So the guy's shrink and LEOs couldn't evaluate him as mentally incompetent but the store clerk should have? Another insightful point. You're like a fountain of critical thought.

I've said the LEO's didn't do their jobs and should be fired, too.

I think there should be legal action taken against these shrinks if they knew he was dangerous and didnt' do anything about it.

I'll go one further. This kid had been seeing therapists since he was 8.

It sounds to me like the shrinks probably made him worse. There's a definite case for malpractice.

 

[JoeB131]

[

So answer the question.


How aside from mandatory psych evals and the subpoenaing of private records do you propose we prevent crazy people from getting guns and what if a person goes crazy after he buys a gun?

1) those are two questions.
2) Winterborn didn't ask either one of them.
3) Everyone in this guy's life knew he was crazy. The Media was able to find out he was crazy without opening any private records.
4) Strict licencing would weed out the crazies after they buy guns.

But honestly, I'm about making an example of htis guy, I really am not all that interested in "facts". He sold a gun to a crazy person, the crazy person killed people.

So I would totally string this guy up from a tree as a warning tot he next guy.

 

[WinterBorn]

[

I guess his crystal ball was in the shop that day. That you want to bankrupt a business because the owner is not clairvoyant speaks volumes. You can threaten someone's children if they don't hire who you say they should hire, because you claim to be all about the working man. But when the working man does everything by the book, and an unmedicated lunatic goes crazy, you want to hold that working man responsible. Nice double standard there.

So would you push to prosecute and/or bankrupt the people who sold him the knives he used to stab 3 people to death?

Would depend on what kind of knives they were. If they were ordinary kitchen knives, meh, not so much. If the were big old hunting knives, maybe. He probably got those the same place he got the guns.

the thing was, he sold a death-machine to an unmedicated lunatic.

And, yes, I'm totally about making examples of people. Whether it be some fat yuppie cow who hires scabs or some unscrupulous businessman who sells guns to crazy people.

Please share your infinite wisdom of how the gun dealer was unscrupulous?? Do you have some way of telling if someone is mentally unbalanced that we should know about? Because unless Rodgers went into the gun store wearing a tinfoil hat or talking to an invisible friend, the gun dealer had absolutely no way of knowing he was crazy.

You want to prosecute and bankrupt someone for not knowing what he had no way of knowing? And you think that is legit? That is absolute bullshit.

If you want to talk about someone without scruples, all you have to do is introduce yourself. For you have none whatsoever.

 

[WinterBorn]

[

So answer the question.


How aside from mandatory psych evals and the subpoenaing of private records do you propose we prevent crazy people from getting guns and what if a person goes crazy after he buys a gun?

1) those are two questions.
2) Winterborn didn't ask either one of them.
3) Everyone in this guy's life knew he was crazy. The Media was able to find out he was crazy without opening any private records.
4) Strict licencing would weed out the crazies after they buy guns.

But honestly, I'm about making an example of htis guy, I really am not all that interested in "facts". He sold a gun to a crazy person, the crazy person killed people.

So I would totally string this guy up from a tree as a warning tot he next guy.

So you want to make an example by saying that following the rules is not enough, you have to be able to read minds or see the future? You are crazy as a loon.

Your "solutions" are simply anti-freedom and against what any sane person would suggest.

 

[WinterBorn]

Would depend on what kind of knives they were. If they were ordinary kitchen knives, meh, not so much. If the were big old hunting knives, maybe. He probably got those the same place he got the guns.

the thing was, he sold a death-machine to an unmedicated lunatic.

And, yes, I'm totally about making examples of people. Whether it be some fat yuppie cow who hires scabs or some unscrupulous businessman who sells guns to crazy people.

Yep, I would much prefer getting slaughtered by a Ken Onion butcher knife than a Bowie knife, good point.

So the guy's shrink and LEOs couldn't evaluate him as mentally incompetent but the store clerk should have? Another insightful point. You're like a fountain of critical thought.

I've said the LEO's didn't do their jobs and should be fired, too.

I think there should be legal action taken against these shrinks if they knew he was dangerous and didnt' do anything about it.

I'll go one further. This kid had been seeing therapists since he was 8.

It sounds to me like the shrinks probably made him worse. There's a definite case for malpractice.

You are clueless about mental illness. You are now claiming that, because the shrinks didn't cure him, they are responsible for making him worse? You might want to get a little info before you make a bigger fool of yourself. There are many mental illnesses that cannot be cured. Many of those can be treated. But that relies on the patient taking his meds. This lunatic stopped taking his meds.

Its also funny that you want people and their children to suffer threats and violence in the name of union jobs, but you want to take away people's jobs whether they knowingly did anything wrong or not. Once again, you are clueless.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Then you FIRE THEM. You make a big deal about firing them. You let it be known they didn't do their jobs and six people died. YOu blacklist them so they never, ever work in law enforcement again.

Then the next guy will check the fuckin' registry.

Then you go after the gun store. YOu take away his license to deal guns and you confiscate all his inventory and you throw a padlock in the front of his store.

Then the next guy will do an accurate background check. He might even notice this guy is acting a little screwy when he's in the store.

So the gun store does the standard NICS background check, gets the OK to sell the gun, and you want to take away his license and steal his inventory?? You are the lunatic in this scenario. The gun dealer did it right. And how the guy acts is not part of the system, here. You have to have actual reasons to deny the sale.

Uh, no, the gun owner didn't "do it right'. He sold three guns to a guy who went on to kill six people.

You make a total fucking example out of this guy, the rest of them will get the message.

So what did he do wrong? He followed the laws, including the 10 day wait on each of the guns.

 

[westwall]

[
Geez, 43 times..... When they first trotted out that lie it was 41 times. I see they are following the advice of their favorite propagandist old Goebbels..."tell a big lie, people are more inclined to believe a big lie than a small one.

It was actually an intruder versus a non-intruder. Nevertheless, it was
a misrepresentation of a meaningless comparison from a limited and
poorly done study. This study was performed over a 6 year period in one
single county in the USA. As this study is was done in just one county,
that makes its results useless for saying what happens anywhere else.
Scientists and researchers call this "a sample size of one".

The comparison is meaningless because it is an apples vs oranges
comparison. 37 of the 43 are suicides, 4.6 are classified as criminal
homicides, and 1.3 were classified as accidents.[

Now, there are three possible responses to Kellerman-

1) The Study was flawed, we need more studies to validate the data. It's something called the Scientific method.

2) The Study was spot on, we need to change our idiotic gun laws.

3) The Study was spot on, we need to BAN THE CDC from ever looking at this issue again, and never speak of this again, lest the words summon Sensible Gun Policy.

Of course, the Gun Nuts went with 3), because at some level, they know damned well that most gun homicides and suicides are not defense related.

Proven-The study was flawed. Proper methodologies were not used nor was the sample size large enough. There have been many other studies of a similar sort who have not reached the same conclusion. Look up Kleck and others for extensive criminology studies.

Proven- Your version of "sensible gun policy" is an outright ban. This is shown by innumerable quotes by totalitarian loving progressive politicians and their supporters.

The CDC is a wonderful scientific body when working on diseases. It should not ever be used as a political policy machine. Only a true idiot directs their energies towards politics and not disease prevention.

 

[westwall]

Then you FIRE THEM. You make a big deal about firing them. You let it be known they didn't do their jobs and six people died. YOu blacklist them so they never, ever work in law enforcement again.

Then the next guy will check the fuckin' registry.

Then you go after the gun store. YOu take away his license to deal guns and you confiscate all his inventory and you throw a padlock in the front of his store.

Then the next guy will do an accurate background check. He might even notice this guy is acting a little screwy when he's in the store.

So the gun store does the standard NICS background check, gets the OK to sell the gun, and you want to take away his license and steal his inventory?? You are the lunatic in this scenario. The gun dealer did it right. And how the guy acts is not part of the system, here. You have to have actual reasons to deny the sale.

Uh, no, the gun owner didn't "do it right'. He sold three guns to a guy who went on to kill six people.

You make a total fucking example out of this guy, the rest of them will get the message.

If it is shown that the gun store followed the law then you have no case or cause and are merely striking out like any other small child having a tantrum.

 

[Skull Pilot]

[

So answer the question.


How aside from mandatory psych evals and the subpoenaing of private records do you propose we prevent crazy people from getting guns and what if a person goes crazy after he buys a gun?

1) those are two questions.
2) Winterborn didn't ask either one of them.
3) Everyone in this guy's life knew he was crazy. The Media was able to find out he was crazy without opening any private records.
4) Strict licencing would weed out the crazies after they buy guns.

But honestly, I'm about making an example of htis guy, I really am not all that interested in "facts". He sold a gun to a crazy person, the crazy person killed people.

So I would totally string this guy up from a tree as a warning tot he next guy.

I'm asking you so answer the question.

So instead of dodging it just answer

 

[MACAULAY]

Tearful plea from victim's dad in deadly rampage

Unbelievable he would deny over 100 million their rights because of one person. And the left will eat it up. How about the 3 he stabbed to death? Shouldn't we ban knives too?

Disgusting.

Yes, ban guns, ban knives, and ban anything that could possibly be used as a weapon.

And before you conservatards flip out and post some stupid comment like, "durrr how culd we inforce dat ur dum lol", Australia already has exactly this policy in place. Hammers are considered tightly-regulated weapons of mass destruction there because they, too, can be used as weapons.

It's time for America to step into the 21st Century and outlaw all weapons, as well as anything else that kills people.

===========================

With this nonsense posted above, it is a good time to point out that the Automobile is by far the most dangerous weapon in America's citizen killing arsenal.

It kills 40,000 American a year.

The recent Wars killed about 4,000. Cars do ten times that every year.

But, Wailing Loons don't even notice that carnage...because they like to ride too.

If they don't own a gun, well, you can't either....its the way totalitarians think...and liberal/progressive are totalitarians if any one is. I think that has been established.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then you FIRE THEM. You make a big deal about firing them. You let it be known they didn't do their jobs and six people died. YOu blacklist them so they never, ever work in law enforcement again.

Then the next guy will check the fuckin' registry.

Then you go after the gun store. YOu take away his license to deal guns and you confiscate all his inventory and you throw a padlock in the front of his store.

Then the next guy will do an accurate background check. He might even notice this guy is acting a little screwy when he's in the store.

So the gun store does the standard NICS background check, gets the OK to sell the gun, and you want to take away his license and steal his inventory?? You are the lunatic in this scenario. The gun dealer did it right. And how the guy acts is not part of the system, here. You have to have actual reasons to deny the sale.

Uh, no, the gun owner didn't "do it right'. He sold three guns to a guy who went on to kill six people.

You make a total fucking example out of this guy, the rest of them will get the message.

Because the law requires people to be clairvoyant, right?

 

[Foxfyre]

So the gun store does the standard NICS background check, gets the OK to sell the gun, and you want to take away his license and steal his inventory?? You are the lunatic in this scenario. The gun dealer did it right. And how the guy acts is not part of the system, here. You have to have actual reasons to deny the sale.

Uh, no, the gun owner didn't "do it right'. He sold three guns to a guy who went on to kill six people.

You make a total fucking example out of this guy, the rest of them will get the message.

Because the law requires people to be clairvoyant, right?

That was my thought too. Should the merchants who sold Tim McVeigh and his accomplice the perfectly innocuous and common place products that he combined to make his OKC bomb be held liable for that act? Should they have done a thorough back ground check on every person who ever presumed to buy such products?

How about the airline personnel who sold the tickets to the 9/11 terrorists? How much would there have been cries of racism and discrimination and howls of violation of civil rights if they had demanded those guys, who had all the requisite IDs, get background checks before they could buy their tickets?

How about the guy who sells the person a new Buick or Ford or Cadillac who then deliberately plows that vehicle into a crowd of moms, dads, and kids? Shouldn't everybody who buys a car have to undergo psychiatric tests to ensure they are neither suicidal or homicidal before they are given the keys to a vehicle?

Or the person who buys that hammer or crow bar or tire iron or baseball bat or hunting knife or book on how to identify deadly mushrooms or heavy candlestick or anything else that can be used for a weapon?

Perhaps given the long range capability of a firearm as compared to the more common lethal weapons of choice, some sort of background check is reasonable in advance of buying a gun, though I seriously doubt that would have much effect overall on gun crime. But given the huge majority, a majority of many many millions, who own firearms and are absolutely no danger to themselves or anybody else, it seems silly to think banning or severely restricting firearms will have much effect on curbing a violent culture that we have promoted and encouraged in this country.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Uh, no, the gun owner didn't "do it right'. He sold three guns to a guy who went on to kill six people.

You make a total fucking example out of this guy, the rest of them will get the message.

Because the law requires people to be clairvoyant, right?

That was my thought too. Should the merchants who sold Tim McVeigh and his accomplice the perfectly innocuous and common place products that he combined to make his OKC bomb be held liable for that act? Should they have done a thorough back ground check on every person who ever presumed to buy such products?

How about the airline personnel who sold the tickets to the 9/11 terrorists? How much would there have been cries of racism and discrimination and howls of violation of civil rights if they had demanded those guys, who had all the requisite IDs, get background checks before they could buy their tickets?

How about the guy who sells the person a new Buick or Ford or Cadillac who then deliberately plows that vehicle into a crowd of moms, dads, and kids? Shouldn't everybody who buys a car have to undergo psychiatric tests to ensure they are neither suicidal or homicidal before they are given the keys to a vehicle?

Or the person who buys that hammer or crow bar or tire iron or baseball bat or hunting knife or book on how to identify deadly mushrooms or heavy candlestick or anything else that can be used for a weapon?

Perhaps given the long range capability of a firearm as compared to the more common lethal weapons of choice, some sort of background check is reasonable in advance of buying a gun, though I seriously doubt that would have much effect overall on gun crime. But given the huge majority, a majority of many many millions, who own firearms and are absolutely no danger to themselves or anybody else, it seems silly to think banning or severely restricting firearms will have much effect on curbing a violent culture that we have promoted and encouraged in this country.

And therein lies the problem with the Nazi left and their knee-jerk responses. I don't have the facts, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find that nearly every product conceived by man can be used for evil. Children die from falling into buckets of water. Children are seriously burnt from sticking utensils into outlets - on and on and on....

The Nazi left, however, adopts certain "causes" that they determine will inevitably lead to "conformity" by the masses. I have NEVER met a liberal who WASN'T in favor of an outright ban of the second amendment. NEVER ONCE.

I have posted videos of those worthless scum who protest the NRA on a regular basis that claim that "No one should have a gun, except the police". Absolute reactionaries to some perceived "evil" that exists where there is none, while ignoring the mental health issues of those who perpetrate these acts.

Typical.......

 

[JoeB131]

So the gun store does the standard NICS background check, gets the OK to sell the gun, and you want to take away his license and steal his inventory?? You are the lunatic in this scenario. The gun dealer did it right. And how the guy acts is not part of the system, here. You have to have actual reasons to deny the sale.

Uh, no, the gun owner didn't "do it right'. He sold three guns to a guy who went on to kill six people.

You make a total fucking example out of this guy, the rest of them will get the message.

So what did he do wrong? He followed the laws, including the 10 day wait on each of the guns.

He sold a gun to a lunatic. That's what he did wrong.

Thanks for playing.

 

[JoeB131]

Uh, no, the gun owner didn't "do it right'. He sold three guns to a guy who went on to kill six people.

You make a total fucking example out of this guy, the rest of them will get the message.

Because the law requires people to be clairvoyant, right?

That was my thought too. Should the merchants who sold Tim McVeigh and his accomplice the perfectly innocuous and common place products that he combined to make his OKC bomb be held liable for that act? Should they have done a thorough back ground check on every person who ever presumed to buy such products?

How about the airline personnel who sold the tickets to the 9/11 terrorists? How much would there have been cries of racism and discrimination and howls of violation of civil rights if they had demanded those guys, who had all the requisite IDs, get background checks before they could buy their tickets?
....

Here's the thing.

After Oklahoma City, they started regulating and tracking who was purchasing Nitrate Fertilizers for suspicious large purchases. (YOu know, from people who aren't actually FARMERS).

After 9/11, they did a whole bunch of things to increase airline security. Full body scans, taking off your shoes, establishing the TSA and putting Air Marshals on the planes.

And since then, guess what. No one has blow up a building with a fertilizer bomb or flown a plane into a building since then.

"Well, Golly, Sarge! How is that!"

But we have mass shootings, and when someone suggests reasonable restrictions on who can have a gun, and the NRA is out there talking about "Second Amendment" and "Founding Fathers" and "Watering the Tree of Liberty with the Blood of Tyrants".

 

[JoeB131]

[

So answer the question.


How aside from mandatory psych evals and the subpoenaing of private records do you propose we prevent crazy people from getting guns and what if a person goes crazy after he buys a gun?

1) those are two questions.
2) Winterborn didn't ask either one of them.
3) Everyone in this guy's life knew he was crazy. The Media was able to find out he was crazy without opening any private records.
4) Strict licencing would weed out the crazies after they buy guns.

But honestly, I'm about making an example of htis guy, I really am not all that interested in "facts". He sold a gun to a crazy person, the crazy person killed people.

So I would totally string this guy up from a tree as a warning tot he next guy.

I'm asking you so answer the question.

So instead of dodging it just answer

Everyone in his life knew he was crazy. The Media found that YouTube Video in hours.

The gun seller didn't care.

Throw his ass in jail, and the next guy will.

 

[JoeB131]

[

If it is shown that the gun store followed the law then you have no case or cause and are merely striking out like any other small child having a tantrum.

Guy, he sold a gun to a lunatic.

And trust me, with the right grand jury, you can indict a ham sandwich.