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

[RetiredGySgt]

[

You are beyond delusional.

Do you think the gun seller knows everyone? Is he only allowed to sell to people he knows?

He had no way of knowing Rodgers was crazy. He checked the NICS to see if Rodgers was allowed to buy a gun, and he was. The system had nothing on him.

Like someone said, this is more like a childish tantrum than an actual debate.

Uh, guy, did you watch the YouTube video.

The thing about insane people is that don't hide that they are insane. They are usually pretty upfront about it.

Did you read is manifest where he was relieved that he managed to hide how crazy he was when the cops showed up in response to his mother calling the police? Funny thing about crazy people, no two are the same.

Actually except for the delusional hyper types most crazy people are quite adapt at hiding their condition. They try to get along in normal society by pretending to be sane. And they do a pretty good job of it for most of them.

Sociopaths come to mind.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

[

If you have some common sense gun control that doesn't already exist in California feel free to trot it out. I am pretty sure that, once that whack job stabbed his roommates, he was there after subject to automatic gun confiscation under California law, yet, for some reason, he felt no need to report to the nearest police station and demand they arrest him.

In other words, the laws don't seem to work the way you think they do.

....

Connecticut is another state that leaves me free to challenge you on what sort of common sense gun laws would have prevented what happened. In fact, I remember doing so right after Sandy Hook, and watching you sputter like an incoherent gerbil.

Hey, crazy person, I usually ignore you because you are like, nuts.

Hmmm.

What kind of laws would have prevented these things?

How about- a background check that encompasses the entire home, including mental health issues. If someone in your house is crazy, there's no gun going to that house.

How about a national gun registry. When those cops went to Rodger's house, it might have been helpful if they had known he had purchased three guns in the last few weeks.

Point is, we have a gun culture that is lax about these things, mostly because we treat someone's right to own a gun like his right to go to the church of his choice.

Your "whole house" idea is worthless. In this case, the actual crazy person bought the guns. And he went thru, not one, not two, but three background checks. None of them showed anything. Why? Because his mental health providers failed in their duty to report him.

Do you think the national gun registry would help? Do you think the cops would have checked the registry and waited for an answer? There was no sign that they treated him as a serious threat.

I'm coming in a bit late and this is a heated thread. I actually posted earlier in response to the OP, but the discussion as morphed since then.
Let me start by saying Columbine, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Isla Vista, all these big name shootings are tragedies. Horrible, just horrible tragedies.
I feel compelled to remind everyone that these tragedies are but a fraction of homicides in these United States. These suburbanite shooting sprees seem to dominate the debate on gun violence.
Let us say, for the sake of argument, that Joe's plan works in at least reducing the frequency of these suburbanite shooting sprees. What evidence is there that this will translate into a significant decrease in the murder rates in Detroit and New Orleans and Los Angeles?
Should not the direction of this discussion be on reducing the actual national murder rate? How would more stringent background checks or a national registry reduce the national murder rate? Quite frankly, the people committing these murders (not the aberrant suburbanite prick with a gun and a manifesto but rather the gangster) usually acquire their firearms through less than official channels.

An estimated 500,000 guns are stolen each year, becoming available to prohibited users. During the ATF's Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative (YCGII), which involved expanded tracing of firearms recovered by law enforcement agencies, only 18% of guns used criminally that were recovered in 1998 were in possession of the original owner. Guns recovered by police during criminal investigations were often sold by legitimate retail sales outlets to legal owners, and then diverted to criminal use over relatively short times ranging from a few months to a few years, which makes them relatively new compared with firearms in general circulation.​

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So even if you are successful at stopping the next douchebag with a small prick and a manifesto in crayon from picking up a gun at the local gunstore, that does nothing to prevent people from purchasing the firearms and then reselling them such that these firearms wind up in the hands of impoverished youth, gangs and outright hardened criminals.

Isn't firearm resale through secondary markets the real issue to reduce gun violence in the United States? And how about that "500,000" guns stolen a year? Okay, I'll ask, how many were actually stolen and how many "fell off the truck"?
To my mind, these are the questions that will lead us to a constructive dialogue on reducing gun violence in our country.

Thanks for reading.

 

[The T]

Gun companies want mayhem? Pure bullshit.

Breeds fear

The shootings don't breed nearly the fear that the news media does. And the anti-gun crowd screaming about how unsafe it is will breed even more.

And every time there is a mass shooting there are politicians who scream about restricting gun ownership even more. So the gun companies stand to lose business. No, the news media and the politicians want mayhem.

Yes they do. It will give them the excuse to seize total control.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Did anybody show the You Tube video to the gun seller? Did anybody tell the gun seller that this guy is nuts and don't sell him a gun? Did anybody do anything or make any effort at all to stop this guy from buying a gun? Why should the gun seller have any clue that this guy wasn't as normal and righteous as any other customer if nobody told him; if there was no information anywhere to inform him?

But you blame the gun seller instead of those who knew the situation and did nothing to inform the authorities who could have gotten it on the record or otherwise had power to stop it.

I think the Shrinks involved should also have their licenses revoked. Possibly face criminal charges.

I think the two cops who stopped by his house and said he was a "nice kid" should also lose their jobs.

And the union thugs who threatened the woman's kids deserve a medal in your mind.
At least you are an honest fascist

You mean the union thugs whose case was thrown out and the judge yelled at the prosecutors for wasting his time?

 

[JoeB131]

If as you claim regular Americans are fed up with the 2nd Amendment then you should have no trouble getting a new amendment passed restricting the 2nd. I mean all it takes is an amendment and 37 States. If you have the votes do it. More laws are pointless. California has very strict laws and it did not stop this guy.

Gonna admit again that you think no one except the military and the cops should have firearms?

Again, we don't have to "change" the constitution.

We have to change the judiciary to something sane.

And, yeah, personally, I see no good reason why any civilian should own a firearm. But I'm willing to be reasonable.

I'm completely for gun ownership as long as we have a national registry, strict licensing, mandetory liability insurance and accountability for gun sellers.

Which is what Germany has and they have very few gun murders.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Yup next Joe will claim car dealers must review local convictions and charges for potential car buyers. There is absolutely no reason a firearms dealer would be reviewing You tube for videos.

Cars aren't designed to kill people.

Guns are.

Argument fail.

 

[WinterBorn]

I think the Shrinks involved should also have their licenses revoked. Possibly face criminal charges.

I think the two cops who stopped by his house and said he was a "nice kid" should also lose their jobs.

And the union thugs who threatened the woman's kids deserve a medal in your mind.
At least you are an honest fascist

You mean the union thugs whose case was thrown out and the judge yelled at the prosecutors for wasting his time?

I mean the union thugs that got off because intimidating and threatening people is not illegal in PA, when done by a union.

 

[Skull Pilot]

[

Yup next Joe will claim car dealers must review local convictions and charges for potential car buyers. There is absolutely no reason a firearms dealer would be reviewing You tube for videos.

Cars aren't designed to kill people.

Guns are.

Argument fail.

Guns are designed to fire a projectile at a target.

People choose the target so people are designed to kill.

 

[JoeB131]

And the union thugs who threatened the woman's kids deserve a medal in your mind.
At least you are an honest fascist

You mean the union thugs whose case was thrown out and the judge yelled at the prosecutors for wasting his time?

I mean the union thugs that got off because intimidating and threatening people is not illegal in PA, when done by a union.

Yup. SO those Unions were engaging in a legal form of labor protest.

What's your complaint again?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

You still haven't answered the question have you?

Why is that?

 

[JoeB131]

An answer you don't like is still an answer, guy.

 

[Skull Pilot]

An answer you don't like is still an answer, guy.

Saying "everyone knew he was nuts" is not an answer to the question I asked now is it?

So Tell me, Sheep, How aside from mandatory psych evals and the subpoenaing of private records do you propose so called crazy people be stopped from legally buying weapons?

 

[JoeB131]

An answer you don't like is still an answer, guy.

Saying "everyone knew he was nuts" is not an answer to the question I asked now is it?

So Tell me, Sheep, How aside from mandatory psych evals and the subpoenaing of private records do you propose so called crazy people be stopped from legally buying weapons?

Guy, two of my three jobs involve working in sales and dealing iwth people. The third involves buying things.

I know who the nuts are. It becomes really obvious, really quickly.

And you know what, I usually move on from the nuts because it never ends well. BUt I don't sell anything you could kill someone with.

NOw, I'll admit, if your customer base are people who want little mini death machines because they are afraid of the Government and Negroes, then maybe you'd have a harder time picking out the nuts because it's a graduating scale. But that would indicate to me you need to be MORE discerning, not less.

 

[WinterBorn]

You mean the union thugs whose case was thrown out and the judge yelled at the prosecutors for wasting his time?

I mean the union thugs that got off because intimidating and threatening people is not illegal in PA, when done by a union.

Yup. SO those Unions were engaging in a legal form of labor protest.

What's your complaint again?

That they tried to intimidate a woman by threats of violence and by threatening her children. I also find it disgusting that this is legal in PA. But I mainly find it amusing that violence against that woman and her children is fine with you, but gun violence by an insane man causes you to demand that everyone who had contact with him lose their jobs.

Oh, and I am also amused that the threats by the union thugs were not successful. The company involved kept the same ratio of union and nonunion jobs.

 

[WinterBorn]

An answer you don't like is still an answer, guy.

Saying "everyone knew he was nuts" is not an answer to the question I asked now is it?

So Tell me, Sheep, How aside from mandatory psych evals and the subpoenaing of private records do you propose so called crazy people be stopped from legally buying weapons?

Guy, two of my three jobs involve working in sales and dealing iwth people. The third involves buying things.

I know who the nuts are. It becomes really obvious, really quickly.

And you know what, I usually move on from the nuts because it never ends well. BUt I don't sell anything you could kill someone with.

NOw, I'll admit, if your customer base are people who want little mini death machines because they are afraid of the Government and Negroes, then maybe you'd have a harder time picking out the nuts because it's a graduating scale. But that would indicate to me you need to be MORE discerning, not less.

I'll call bullshit here. You are claiming you can tell who is crazy and who is not? Bullshit. Yeah, seeing the guy on the sidewalk muttering to himself is easy. But you maintain that Rodgers was acting batshit crazy. But unless you have some evidence of that, you are simply lying again.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Do you know if Rodgers did anything "crazy" while he was buying the gun, or 10 days later when he was picking the gun up?

You want to blame an innocent store guy for the actions of the lunatic. The only one responsible is the lunatic. Blame his shrinks if you want, but the gun dealer is not to blame.

The good news is that the chances of you ever being in a position of serious authority is zero, so your brand of "logic" won't ever be a problem.

There are no "innocent" gun store owners.

They sell a product they know is dangerous to people who plain old shouldn't have them.

And frankly, regular Americans are getting sick and tired of the NRA and their toadies dictating policy.

If as you claim regular Americans are fed up with the 2nd Amendment then you should have no trouble getting a new amendment passed restricting the 2nd. I mean all it takes is an amendment and 37 States. If you have the votes do it. More laws are pointless. California has very strict laws and it did not stop this guy.

Gonna admit again that you think no one except the military and the cops should have firearms?

At least you’re consistent in your ignorance.

The courts determine what the Constitution means, as the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment – no other ‘amendments’ needed.

And the courts alone will develop Second Amendment jurisprudence, as to what regulations and restrictions are Constitutional and what regulations and restrictions are not.

 

[The T]

There are no "innocent" gun store owners.

They sell a product they know is dangerous to people who plain old shouldn't have them.

And frankly, regular Americans are getting sick and tired of the NRA and their toadies dictating policy.

If as you claim regular Americans are fed up with the 2nd Amendment then you should have no trouble getting a new amendment passed restricting the 2nd. I mean all it takes is an amendment and 37 States. If you have the votes do it. More laws are pointless. California has very strict laws and it did not stop this guy.

Gonna admit again that you think no one except the military and the cops should have firearms?

At least you’re consistent in your ignorance.

The courts determine what the Constitution means, as the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment – no other ‘amendments’ needed.

And the courts alone will develop Second Amendment jurisprudence, as to what regulations and restrictions are Constitutional and what regulations and restrictions are not.

^^^ PSYCHOBABBLE ^^^

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSSEXD_9l4A"]The Alan Parsons Project psychobabble - YouTube[/ame]

No, the Courts determine IF laws meet Constitutional muster. The words of the Constitution are quite plain. What YOU are stating is they can change it on a whim...you have no idea what you're talking about again, Clayton.

 

[Skull Pilot]

An answer you don't like is still an answer, guy.

Saying "everyone knew he was nuts" is not an answer to the question I asked now is it?

So Tell me, Sheep, How aside from mandatory psych evals and the subpoenaing of private records do you propose so called crazy people be stopped from legally buying weapons?

Guy, two of my three jobs involve working in sales and dealing iwth people. The third involves buying things.

I know who the nuts are. It becomes really obvious, really quickly.

And you know what, I usually move on from the nuts because it never ends well. BUt I don't sell anything you could kill someone with.

NOw, I'll admit, if your customer base are people who want little mini death machines because they are afraid of the Government and Negroes, then maybe you'd have a harder time picking out the nuts because it's a graduating scale. But that would indicate to me you need to be MORE discerning, not less.

Can you smell the shit that comes out of your own mouth?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Saying "everyone knew he was nuts" is not an answer to the question I asked now is it?

So Tell me, Sheep, How aside from mandatory psych evals and the subpoenaing of private records do you propose so called crazy people be stopped from legally buying weapons?

Guy, two of my three jobs involve working in sales and dealing iwth people. The third involves buying things.

I know who the nuts are. It becomes really obvious, really quickly.

And you know what, I usually move on from the nuts because it never ends well. BUt I don't sell anything you could kill someone with.

NOw, I'll admit, if your customer base are people who want little mini death machines because they are afraid of the Government and Negroes, then maybe you'd have a harder time picking out the nuts because it's a graduating scale. But that would indicate to me you need to be MORE discerning, not less.

Can you smell the shit that comes out of your own mouth?

Joe doesn't believe ANY private citizen should own or possess firearms. No matter what their mental state is.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Yup. SO those Unions were engaging in a legal form of labor protest.

What's your complaint again?

That they tried to intimidate a woman by threats of violence and by threatening her children. I also find it disgusting that this is legal in PA. But I mainly find it amusing that violence against that woman and her children is fine with you, but gun violence by an insane man causes you to demand that everyone who had contact with him lose their jobs.

Oh, and I am also amused that the threats by the union thugs were not successful. The company involved kept the same ratio of union and nonunion jobs.

Um, yeah, I just cant get upset with. "Mommy, why'd he call you a 'scab'?" being up there with slaughtering six people because you can't get laid.

Point was, the gun shop was supposed to make sure they didn't sell to crazy people.

The cops were supposed to make sure that he didn't do anything crazy.

The Shrink was supposed to warn someone if he thought hte guy was a danger to himself or others.