(08-27-2015 04:58 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 04:34 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 03:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Shut down the open air gun market (oops I mean gun show) for starters. Make all purchasers and sellers of firearms conduct those sales under the authority of the police and retain records of who has the guns and where they are location. Hold gun owners strictly liable (civilly and criminally) for acts committed with their firearms if they are neglegent or careless (not securing their weapon).

You keep supposing that those who wish to disarm the law-abiding have some benign or higher purpose.

They don’t.

They want to disarm the populace to make them easier to subdue.

The authorities were able to determine he bought the gun legally and that he did not have any history of mental illness. How would the proposed law have stopped this?

I don't know as I am not proposing nor supporting what Tom wrote. Only that in his proposal there is nefarious intent to ensure a gun-owning populace is properly tracked, checked, and managed.

Tom, your thoughts?

(08-27-2015 05:12 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 04:58 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 04:34 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 03:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Shut down the open air gun market (oops I mean gun show) for starters. Make all purchasers and sellers of firearms conduct those sales under the authority of the police and retain records of who has the guns and where they are location. Hold gun owners strictly liable (civilly and criminally) for acts committed with their firearms if they are neglegent or careless (not securing their weapon).

You keep supposing that those who wish to disarm the law-abiding have some benign or higher purpose.

They don’t.

They want to disarm the populace to make them easier to subdue.

The authorities were able to determine he bought the gun legally and that he did not have any history of mental illness. How would the proposed law have stopped this?

I don't know as I am not proposing nor supporting what Tom wrote. Only that in his proposal there is nefarious intent to ensure a gun-owning populace is properly tracked, checked, and managed.

Tom, your thoughts?

There's nothing nefarious in ensuring that paranoid gun owners be properly tracked, checked, and managed. Its common sense.

(08-27-2015 06:26 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 06:47 PM)wahoowa Wrote:  So now we have a gay thug. This is going to cause a lot of confusion among a few posters.

Is that worse than a straight thug?

If roof took it up the ass, would any more people be alive or dead?

I don't see the point...just like I don't care what color his eyes are, or if he's left handed...it has nothing to do with anything.

He shot 3 people in cold blood...THAT is what concerns me.

Good. You agree that he is a thug.

(08-27-2015 05:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 05:12 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 04:58 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 04:34 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 03:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Shut down the open air gun market (oops I mean gun show) for starters. Make all purchasers and sellers of firearms conduct those sales under the authority of the police and retain records of who has the guns and where they are location. Hold gun owners strictly liable (civilly and criminally) for acts committed with their firearms if they are neglegent or careless (not securing their weapon).

You keep supposing that those who wish to disarm the law-abiding have some benign or higher purpose.

They don’t.

They want to disarm the populace to make them easier to subdue.

The authorities were able to determine he bought the gun legally and that he did not have any history of mental illness. How would the proposed law have stopped this?

I don't know as I am not proposing nor supporting what Tom wrote. Only that in his proposal there is nefarious intent to ensure a gun-owning populace is properly tracked, checked, and managed.

Tom, your thoughts?

There's nothing nefarious in ensuring that paranoid gun owners be properly tracked, checked, and managed. Its common sense.

You are nuts. 100% nuts. You think there is a magic wand pre crime solution. Paranoid is not a crime, and by your definition that someone who owns a gun. You sound like the paranoid one.

(08-27-2015 05:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  There's nothing nefarious in ensuring that paranoid gun owners be properly tracked, checked, and managed. Its common sense.

You support then, for instance, that on government orders the police went door-to-door, confiscating firearms and leaving the remaining citizens disarmed and helpless in the face of looters and gangs in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? The way they did in Boston after the marathon bombing when body-armored “police” riding in battlewagons went up and down the streets, making citizens come out of their homes with their hands over their heads, ostensibly so the troops could look for terrorists?

Are you going to station police and troops all around the country to search every person, every car coming in? Stop and frisk all black men and college girls living in the neighborhood? So you’ve cleared two blocks, or ten, or a hundred, or maybe the entire city of Minneapolis – how many police and troops are tied up in keeping firearms properly tracked, checked, and managed?

A guy carrying a backpack full of pistols could walk across the border anywhere. How many police and troops do you need to station along all four borders to keep Minnesota sterile while you’re clearing Wisconsin, figuring one sentry every how many yards, and how many sentries working shifts to provide round-the-clock coverage, plus backup personnel for sick days? Who’s going to inspect every car and truck coming into the state?

And that impossibility guarantees the day after your tracked, checked, and managed (really a disarmament) law takes effect, it starts to lose effect, as legal arms are replaced with illegal arms used by illegal owners to commit illegal acts of gun violence. And that guarantees your plan will be as big a failure as Prohibition, the war on drugs and the war on illegal immigration.

If you’re going to get American guns, Tom, you’re going to have to go house to house to do it. The Army and Marines had a hell of a time taking Fallujah, one pissant city in one pissant country. You start sending American troops to kick down American doors in American cities and I suspect the dead National Guardsmen and police will begin to pile up in a hurry. If you can get any National Guardsmen and police to implement your plan.......

It’s completely impossible to impose a sterile tracked, checked, and managed zone on an entire liberal democracy the size of America.

The answer to gun violence is not more laws, and it is certainly not a database of tracked, checked, and managed legal gun owners.

(08-27-2015 05:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 05:12 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 04:58 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 04:34 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 03:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Shut down the open air gun market (oops I mean gun show) for starters. Make all purchasers and sellers of firearms conduct those sales under the authority of the police and retain records of who has the guns and where they are location. Hold gun owners strictly liable (civilly and criminally) for acts committed with their firearms if they are neglegent or careless (not securing their weapon).

You keep supposing that those who wish to disarm the law-abiding have some benign or higher purpose.

They don’t.

They want to disarm the populace to make them easier to subdue.

The authorities were able to determine he bought the gun legally and that he did not have any history of mental illness. How would the proposed law have stopped this?

I don't know as I am not proposing nor supporting what Tom wrote. Only that in his proposal there is nefarious intent to ensure a gun-owning populace is properly tracked, checked, and managed.

Tom, your thoughts?

There's nothing nefarious in ensuring that paranoid gun owners be properly tracked, checked, and managed. Its common sense.

How about gun owners who aren't paranoid?

How and who defines 'paranoid'?

(08-27-2015 05:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 05:12 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 04:58 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 04:34 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 03:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Shut down the open air gun market (oops I mean gun show) for starters. Make all purchasers and sellers of firearms conduct those sales under the authority of the police and retain records of who has the guns and where they are location. Hold gun owners strictly liable (civilly and criminally) for acts committed with their firearms if they are neglegent or careless (not securing their weapon).

You keep supposing that those who wish to disarm the law-abiding have some benign or higher purpose.

They don’t.

They want to disarm the populace to make them easier to subdue.

The authorities were able to determine he bought the gun legally and that he did not have any history of mental illness. How would the proposed law have stopped this?

I don't know as I am not proposing nor supporting what Tom wrote. Only that in his proposal there is nefarious intent to ensure a gun-owning populace is properly tracked, checked, and managed.

Tom, your thoughts?

There's nothing nefarious in ensuring that paranoid gun owners be properly tracked, checked, and managed. Its common sense.

How about queers with HIV and Aids? Should they be tracked and managed,...it's common sense. Their disease and actions have killed more than people with guns.

That's sensitivity 101 threre.


Queers and homos with AIDS. Track those bastards too!

(08-27-2015 07:32 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  That's sensitivity 101 threre.


Queers and homos with AIDS. Track those bastards too!

Why not? They're probably more dangerous in the long run.

(08-27-2015 07:32 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  That's sensitivity 101 threre.


Queers and homos with AIDS. Track those bastards too!

The brashness of the statement does not negate the point behind it..

(08-27-2015 06:21 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  How and who defines 'paranoid'?

If you can't go to the grocery store without packing heat or you feel the need to 'open bully', I mean 'open carry', then you're probably paranoid unless you got a damn good reason IMHO.

In my perfect world, no one would have to go door to door collecting weapons because it would be a felony to leave your house with one. Keep all the guns you want inside your home. But youre liable if any of those weapons leave your house.

How does a Constitutional Right equate to paranoia in your world ?

(08-27-2015 09:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 06:21 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  How and who defines 'paranoid'?

If you can't go to the grocery store without packing heat or you feel the need to 'open bully', I mean 'open carry', then you're probably paranoid unless you got a damn good reason IMHO.

In my perfect world, no one would have to go door to door collecting weapons because it would be a felony to leave your house with one. Keep all the guns you want inside your home. But youre liable if any of those weapons leave your house.

How is going to the store with a gun paranoid? Are you scared of the gun or the people?
I would say YOU are the one being paranoid if you see a person with a gun. You just assume you are going to be shot and they are a bully

(08-27-2015 09:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 06:21 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  How and who defines 'paranoid'?

If you can't go to the grocery store without packing heat or you feel the need to 'open bully', I mean 'open carry', then you're probably paranoid unless you got a damn good reason IMHO.

It's ok Tom we really did not expect anything but this from you... Gun ownership is ok for anyone who does not want to carry a gun...."

Horrific incident. Unfortunately it is on the news everywhere, as is common nowadays with this type of thing. Part of me wishes I could just block it all out, but it is everywhere I turn. Sickening.

(08-27-2015 09:27 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 06:21 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  How and who defines 'paranoid'?

If you can't go to the grocery store without packing heat or you feel the need to 'open bully', I mean 'open carry', then you're probably paranoid unless you got a damn good reason IMHO.

In my perfect world, no one would have to go door to door collecting weapons because it would be a felony to leave your house with one. Keep all the guns you want inside your home. But youre liable if any of those weapons leave your house.

How is going to the store with a gun paranoid? Are you scared of the gun or the people?
I would say YOU are the one being paranoid if you see a person with a gun. You just assume you are going to be shot and they are a bully

I'm not alone... Open Bully = Open Carry. The only reason to carry a weapon where people can see it ... is to implicitly threaten to kill someone if they backtalk you or disappoint you in any way.

(08-27-2015 10:43 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Horrific incident. Unfortunately it is on the news everywhere, as is common nowadays with this type of thing. Part of me wishes I could just block it all out, but it is everywhere I turn. Sickening.

1 mass shooting per day now in the USA. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkb...y-in-2015/

As guns proliferate...mass shootings proliferate
As people carry guns outside their house more...more mass shootings
As gun controls are reduced to zero...more mass shootings

By the way, all this talk from the gun folks about removing or reducing access to guns by the insane or criminals has gone out the window, because there's no way to do it without getting rid of the 'no questions asked private sales at the gun show'..

(08-27-2015 03:17 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I don't understand why this is a gun issue at all. It's a race a discrimination issue.

Only when the shooter is white !

(08-27-2015 07:43 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:32 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  That's sensitivity 101 threre.


Queers and homos with AIDS. Track those bastards too!

Why not? They're probably more dangerous in the long run.

The silent Killers !