http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/25/12957142-obama-addresses-gun-control-for-first-time-since-aurora-shootings?lite&__utma=14933801.945644956.1342450736.1343149030.1343318894.12&__utmb=14933801.1.10.1343318894&__utmc=14933801&__utmx=-&__utmz=14933801.1342450736.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utmccn=(direct)|utmcmd=(none)&__utmv=14933801.|8=Earned%20By=msnbc%7Ccover=1^12=Landing%20Content=Mixed=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=www.nbcnews.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Earned%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=177266213

How exactly does he propose we keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable? Should we give pysh exams prior to purchase? Should we require a doctors sign-off? Should the government get access to your medical records and take it to a panel? Should we interview classmates, colleagues and teachers of hopeful gun owners?

JBass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> How exactly does he propose we keep guns out of
> the hands of the mentally unstable? Should we
> give pysh exams prior to purchase? Should we
> require a doctors sign-off? Should the government
> get access to your medical records and take it to
> a panel? Should we interview classmates,
> colleagues and teachers of hopeful gun owners?

If we were serious about this issue, all of the above. Of course, that won't happen.

There are already provisions in place to report mental health records to a nationwide central database. But most states aren't compliant.

I don't think it's too much to ask of someone who wants to purchase a lethal weapon whose sole intent is to kill that they go through a rigorous screening process.

Oh Please... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> If we were serious about this issue, all of the
> above. Of course, that won't happen.
>
> There are already provisions in place to report
> mental health records to a nationwide central
> database. But most states aren't compliant.
>
> I don't think it's too much to ask of someone who
> wants to purchase a lethal weapon whose sole
> intent is to kill that they go through a rigorous
> screening process.


Yes, that is exactly what Eric Holder said when he signed off on Fast and Furious.

JBass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/25/12
> 957142-obama-addresses-gun-control-for-first-time-
> since-aurora-shootings?lite&__utma=14933801.945644
> 956.1342450736.1343149030.1343318894.12&__utmb=149
> 33801.1.10.1343318894&__utmc=14933801&__utmx=-&__u
> tmz=14933801.1342450736.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utmccn
> =(direct)|utmcmd=(none)&__utmv=14933801.|8=Earned%
> 20By=msnbc%7Ccover=1^12=Landing%20Content=Mixed=1^
> 13=Landing%20Hostname=www.nbcnews.com=1^30=Visit%2
> 0Type%20to%20Content=Earned%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=
> 177266213
>
> How exactly does he propose we keep guns out of
> the hands of the mentally unstable? Should we
> give pysh exams prior to purchase? Should we
> require a doctors sign-off? Should the government
> get access to your medical records and take it to
> a panel? Should we interview classmates,
> colleagues and teachers of hopeful gun owners?

Unconstitutional.

Err...it's already against the law to sell a gun to someone who has been diagnosed as mentally unstable, according to the Brady Act...


Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;

The problem in this situation is that he wasn't diagnosed. It could be a failure of public health or the health care industry. But odds are, in this case, the guy kept a low-profile and escaped detection.

I still think its going to turn out that he is paranoid schizophrenic and it didn't materialize until a couple of years ago.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Oh Please... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JBass Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > How exactly does he propose we keep guns out of
> > the hands of the mentally unstable? Should we
> > give pysh exams prior to purchase? Should we
> > require a doctors sign-off? Should the
> government
> > get access to your medical records and take it
> to
> > a panel? Should we interview classmates,
> > colleagues and teachers of hopeful gun owners?
>
> If we were serious about this issue, all of the
> above. Of course, that won't happen.

Thank god. I hope more and more people buy guns and carry them just because they are afraid that the stranger on the street might have one, too!

>
> There are already provisions in place to report
> mental health records to a nationwide central
> database. But most states aren't compliant.

What are these provisions? i have never heard of such a thing. Perhaps there is a database of people who have used mental illness as a defense in court but I can flat-out guarantee you there is no requirement that mental health professionals report their clients confidential medical records to a central database. If you know otherwise, please share the source, Id like to read on it.

>
> I don't think it's too much to ask of someone who
> wants to purchase a lethal weapon whose sole
> intent is to kill that they go through a rigorous
> screening process.

I think it is.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Err...it's already against the law to sell a gun
> to someone who has been diagnosed as mentally
> unstable, according to the Brady Act...

No, it isn't. As you say below, the person must be adjudicated mentally defective or committed. Simply being diagnosed as mentally unstable is not sufficient enough to prevent a person from purchasing a firearm.

> Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or
> committed to a mental institution;

Keep in mind as well that a person who voluntarily admits themself to a mental health facility has not been adjudicated mentally unstable or committed.

We need to address these lax laws when it comes to the mentally unstable and firarms.

Klinton Spilsbury Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Err...it's already against the law to sell a
> gun
> > to someone who has been diagnosed as mentally
> > unstable, according to the Brady Act...
>
> No, it isn't. As you say below, the person must
> be adjudicated mentally defective or committed.
> Simply being diagnosed as mentally unstable is not
> sufficient enough to prevent a person from
> purchasing a firearm.
>
> > Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or
> > committed to a mental institution;
>
> Keep in mind as well that a person who voluntarily
> admits themself to a mental health facility has
> not been adjudicated mentally unstable or
> committed.
>
> We need to address these lax laws when it comes to
> the mentally unstable and firarms.


So.... what would you propose? How should we address it?

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Err...it's already against the law to sell a gun
> to someone who has been diagnosed as mentally
> unstable, according to the Brady Act...
>
>
> Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or
> committed to a mental institution;
>
> The problem in this situation is that he wasn't
> diagnosed. It could be a failure of public health
> or the health care industry. But odds are, in this
> case, the guy kept a low-profile and escaped
> detection.
>
> I still think its going to turn out that he is
> paranoid schizophrenic and it didn't materialize
> until a couple of years ago.

Thatll be his defense in court but its probably all BS

The fact is things like this are just going to happen, its sad, its tragic, but nothing will ever stop things like this from happening unless you want the military running security everywhere or living on a brutal regime. Guns being legal or not people will use them for evil, theres just evil people in the world and people that do evil things.

A psych test to buy a weapon wont change anything, theres a lot of shitty psychologists and people who would sign off on anyone for money. Its also be a complete waste of time and a burden. Not even the NRA wants people whove used the insanity to defense to have guns, everyones on the same page with that there should be no political pandering with that.

Trying to blame the rifle for the crime like Obama wanting to bring back the assault rifle ban is also very stupid. Either you should be able to own a gun or you shouldnt, it doesnt matter what type. And no gun owners would not agree that those guns should only be with the military, another lie. If he wants to say he thinks they should be banned because he doesnt like them, fine he should have been saying that all along.

But lets not for a second pretend like this shooting was a result of that weapon (he had 2 others as well) or that them being banned would have changed anything that happened that right. To imply that is frankly a cheap political move to try and capitalize on a tragic killing spree and a cheap political move. Its also a deflection of the blame which is the new thing in society and something liberals seem to have fallen in love with. Nothing here is at fault except for the shooter himself.

the gun had nothing to do with it Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thatll be his defense in court but its probably
> all BS
>
> The fact is things like this are just going to
> happen, its sad, its tragic, but nothing will ever
> stop things like this from happening unless you
> want the military running security everywhere or
> living on a brutal regime. Guns being legal or
> not people will use them for evil, theres just
> evil people in the world and people that do evil
> things.
>
> A psych test to buy a weapon wont change anything,
> theres a lot of shitty psychologists and people
> who would sign off on anyone for money. Its also
> be a complete waste of time and a burden. Not
> even the NRA wants people whove used the insanity
> to defense to have guns, everyones on the same
> page with that there should be no political
> pandering with that.
>
> Trying to blame the rifle for the crime like Obama
> wanting to bring back the assault rifle ban is
> also very stupid. Either you should be able to
> own a gun or you shouldnt, it doesnt matter what
> type. And no gun owners would not agree that
> those guns should only be with the military,
> another lie. If he wants to say he thinks they
> should be banned because he doesnt like them, fine
> he should have been saying that all along.
>
> But lets not for a second pretend like this
> shooting was a result of that weapon (he had 2
> others as well) or that them being banned would
> have changed anything that happened that right.
> To imply that is frankly a cheap political move to
> try and capitalize on a tragic killing spree and a
> cheap political move. Its also a deflection of
> the blame which is the new thing in society and
> something liberals seem to have fallen in love
> with. Nothing here is at fault except for the
> shooter himself.


I agree and well thought out response. It doesn't matter if the guns are in the hands of the people or the military, there will always be evil people abusing the power. Remember kent State and VA Tech? People were killed by evil people, one military, one civilian. There is no panacea.

JBass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Klinton Spilsbury Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Err...it's already against the law to sell a
> > gun
> > > to someone who has been diagnosed as mentally
> > > unstable, according to the Brady Act...
> >
> > No, it isn't. As you say below, the person
> must
> > be adjudicated mentally defective or committed.
>
> > Simply being diagnosed as mentally unstable is
> not
> > sufficient enough to prevent a person from
> > purchasing a firearm.
> >
> > > Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or
> > > committed to a mental institution;
> >
> > Keep in mind as well that a person who
> voluntarily
> > admits themself to a mental health facility has
> > not been adjudicated mentally unstable or
> > committed.
> >
> > We need to address these lax laws when it comes
> to
> > the mentally unstable and firarms.
>
>
> So.... what would you propose? How should we
> address it?

I don't pretend to be smart enough to have the answer to this difficult and thorny issue. I am sure policy proposals will abound on this issue in the near future and I will study and evaluate them and let you know which proposals I agree with and which I find fault with.

Klinton Spilsbury Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JBass Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Klinton Spilsbury Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Err...it's already against the law to sell
> a
> > > gun
> > > > to someone who has been diagnosed as
> mentally
> > > > unstable, according to the Brady Act...
> > >
> > > No, it isn't. As you say below, the person
> > must
> > > be adjudicated mentally defective or
> committed.
> >
> > > Simply being diagnosed as mentally unstable
> is
> > not
> > > sufficient enough to prevent a person from
> > > purchasing a firearm.
> > >
> > > > Has been adjudicated as a mental defective
> or
> > > > committed to a mental institution;
> > >
> > > Keep in mind as well that a person who
> > voluntarily
> > > admits themself to a mental health facility
> has
> > > not been adjudicated mentally unstable or
> > > committed.
> > >
> > > We need to address these lax laws when it
> comes
> > to
> > > the mentally unstable and firarms.
> >
> >
> > So.... what would you propose? How should we
> > address it?
>
> I don't pretend to be smart enough to have the
> answer to this difficult and thorny issue. I am
> sure policy proposals will abound on this issue in
> the near future and I will study and evaluate them
> and let you know which proposals I agree with and
> which I find fault with.


And in the end it will be a political compromise that will do nothing but look like politicians did their work and of course they "care."

Good Reply Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I agree and well thought out response. It doesn't
> matter if the guns are in the hands of the people
> or the military, there will always be evil people
> abusing the power. Remember kent State and VA
> Tech? People were killed by evil people, one
> military, one civilian. There is no panacea.


Thank you. Gun deaths happen all the times in places where guns are banned. People that shoot other people in cold blood dont follow laws, criminals dont follow laws, Im not sure why people seem to think theyll follow this law or why these types of incidents just magically started happening with the invention of firearms.

Theres been murderers since the begging of time, and will be till the end of time. Its just a tragic fact of life. If anything you have a better chance of survival in that situation against a rifle like that in a lot of places. You cant conceal them so you could potentially see them coming and they take far longer to reload which would give you a possible opening to attack and at least stop the shooting. Full auto would actually be best since most people think you shoot those like in the movie and if you try that in real life you get maybe 3 bullets to go where you want before the vast majority of people would be wasting their ammo on the roof.

The amount of people who use guns for things like this is miniscule compared to the number of guns and gun owners in the country. But like I said the only person we should be blaming is the shooter himself.

If politicans want to have a debate over guns from their personal beliefs, thats fine. But this incident shouldnt be used to get emotional votes.

JBass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/25/12
> 957142-obama-addresses-gun-control-for-first-time-
> since-aurora-shootings?lite&__utma=14933801.945644
> 956.1342450736.1343149030.1343318894.12&__utmb=149
> 33801.1.10.1343318894&__utmc=14933801&__utmx=-&__u
> tmz=14933801.1342450736.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utmccn
> =(direct)|utmcmd=(none)&__utmv=14933801.|8=Earned%
> 20By=msnbc%7Ccover=1^12=Landing%20Content=Mixed=1^
> 13=Landing%20Hostname=www.nbcnews.com=1^30=Visit%2
> 0Type%20to%20Content=Earned%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=
> 177266213
>

posted link was a total fail ever hear of tinyurl or other link shorteners. dumbfuck

say-wuht Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JBass Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/25/12
>
> >
> 957142-obama-addresses-gun-control-for-first-time-
>
> >
> since-aurora-shootings?lite&__utma=14933801.945644
>
> >
> 956.1342450736.1343149030.1343318894.12&__utmb=149
>
> >
> 33801.1.10.1343318894&__utmc=14933801&__utmx=-&__u
>
> >
> tmz=14933801.1342450736.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utmccn
>
> >
> =(direct)|utmcmd=(none)&__utmv=14933801.|8=Earned%
>
> >
> 20By=msnbc%7Ccover=1^12=Landing%20Content=Mixed=1^
>
> >
> 13=Landing%20Hostname=www.nbcnews.com=1^30=Visit%2
>
> >
> 0Type%20to%20Content=Earned%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=
>
> > 177266213
> >
>
> posted link was a total fail ever hear of tinyurl
> or other link shorteners. dumbfuck

Its not your fault.

In reaction to VT massacre, Congress passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-180), which aimed to incentivize states to share records for NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check) background checks to prevent mentally unstable people from buying guns. States are supposed to notify "the Attorney General when a court order has been issued or removed or a person has been adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to a mental institution." As shown in the attached chart, compliance varys widely by state.

Even then, there are restrictions on what states can report. The act "Prohibits federal agencies from providing a person's mental health or commitment information to the Attorney General if:

(1) such information has been set aside or expunged or the person involved has been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring;

(2) the person has been found to no longer suffer from a mental health condition or has been found to be rehabilitated; or

(3) the adjudication or commitment is based solely on a medical finding of disability without a hearing and there has been no adjudication under the federal criminal code of mental defectiveness."

This minimal level of screening would reject just the most obvious cases of mental incompetence...and then only if it persists or they are still undergoing treatment. But it's better than nothing, at least until somebody has the balls to remove the loopholes and expand the reporting criteria.

It is important to distinguish between mental illness and evil. I would be shocked if the Aurora killer didn't have schizophrenia. This is a physical illness that manifests itself in the brain. I'm sure it will come out that some people knew that he was seriously disturbed (including, I bet, his mother). Under current rules, he would not have been prevented from buying guns. Had there been more rigorous reporting mechanisms in place, he might have been.

For you gun enthusiasts, why should anyone be able to buy an automatic weapon? There is absolutely no need for that kind of firepower outside of law enforcement. It is outrageous that these guns are being sold.

Mass murders don't happen unless there is a mechanism that allows them to happen.
Attachments:

Oh Please... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In reaction to VT massacre, Congress passed the
> NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (Public
> Law 110-180), which aimed to incentivize states to
> share records for NICS (National Instant Criminal
> Background Check) background checks to prevent
> mentally unstable people from buying guns. States
> are supposed to notify "the Attorney General when
> a court order has been issued or removed or a
> person has been adjudicated as mentally defective
> or committed to a mental institution." As shown in
> the attached chart, compliance varys widely by
> state.
>
> Even then, there are restrictions on what states
> can report. The act "Prohibits federal agencies
> from providing a person's mental health or
> commitment information to the Attorney General
> if:
>
> (1) such information has been set aside or
> expunged or the person involved has been fully
> released or discharged from all mandatory
> treatment, supervision, or monitoring;
>
> (2) the person has been found to no longer suffer
> from a mental health condition or has been found
> to be rehabilitated; or
>
> (3) the adjudication or commitment is based solely
> on a medical finding of disability without a
> hearing and there has been no adjudication under
> the federal criminal code of mental
> defectiveness."
>
> This minimal level of screening would reject just
> the most obvious cases of mental
> incompetence...and then only if it persists or
> they are still undergoing treatment. But it's
> better than nothing, at least until somebody has
> the balls to remove the loopholes and expand the
> reporting criteria.
>
> It is important to distinguish between mental
> illness and evil. I would be shocked if the Aurora
> killer didn't have schizophrenia. This is a
> physical illness that manifests itself in the
> brain. I'm sure it will come out that some people
> knew that he was seriously disturbed (including, I
> bet, his mother). Under current rules, he would
> not have been prevented from buying guns. Had
> there been more rigorous reporting mechanisms in
> place, he might have been.

What exactly are you proposing? Do you think Doctors should report names of mental health patients to the gubmint?

>
> For you gun enthusiasts, why should anyone be able
> to buy an automatic weapon? There is absolutely no
> need for that kind of firepower outside of law
> enforcement. It is outrageous that these guns are
> being sold.

Why should I be able to? Because its my constitutional right. Because I want one, because I can. Because the bad guy might have one. Because its a great investment, because they are fun to shoot.

In reality, I need them because governments, both foreign and domestic, have them.

>
> Mass murders don't happen unless there is a
> mechanism that allows them to happen.

Right. Lets ban fertilizer, gasoline and airplanes, too!

Oh Please... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In reaction to VT massacre, Congress passed the
> NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (Public
> Law 110-180), which aimed to incentivize states to
> share records for NICS (National Instant Criminal
> Background Check) background checks to prevent
> mentally unstable people from buying guns. States
> are supposed to notify "the Attorney General when
> a court order has been issued or removed or a
> person has been adjudicated as mentally defective
> or committed to a mental institution." As shown in
> the attached chart, compliance varys widely by
> state.
>
> Even then, there are restrictions on what states
> can report. The act "Prohibits federal agencies
> from providing a person's mental health or
> commitment information to the Attorney General
> if:
>
> (1) such information has been set aside or
> expunged or the person involved has been fully
> released or discharged from all mandatory
> treatment, supervision, or monitoring;
>
> (2) the person has been found to no longer suffer
> from a mental health condition or has been found
> to be rehabilitated; or
>
> (3) the adjudication or commitment is based solely
> on a medical finding of disability without a
> hearing and there has been no adjudication under
> the federal criminal code of mental
> defectiveness."
>
> This minimal level of screening would reject just
> the most obvious cases of mental
> incompetence...and then only if it persists or
> they are still undergoing treatment. But it's
> better than nothing, at least until somebody has
> the balls to remove the loopholes and expand the
> reporting criteria.

And yet it proves that these feel good laws do not work. Now we will see another silly law put into place because of Aroura and guess what? Someone will still find a way to kill people.
>
> It is important to distinguish between mental
> illness and evil. I would be shocked if the Aurora
> killer didn't have schizophrenia. This is a
> physical illness that manifests itself in the
> brain. I'm sure it will come out that some people
> knew that he was seriously disturbed (including, I
> bet, his mother). Under current rules, he would
> not have been prevented from buying guns. Had
> there been more rigorous reporting mechanisms in
> place, he might have been.
>
> For you gun enthusiasts, why should anyone be able
> to buy an automatic weapon? There is absolutely no
> need for that kind of firepower outside of law
> enforcement. It is outrageous that these guns are
> being sold.
>
> Mass murders don't happen unless there is a
> mechanism that allows them to happen.

The mechanism that allows it to happen is called people. Please tell me when since man has roamed this earth that there has not been murder or even multiple murder. It was happening before guns or gun laws and will continue to happen.

There are already state laws that keep persons deemed insane from pssessing weapons.

Diagnosed and deemed insane are two different things. If the law was amended to deny gun ownership to all of the wobble heads in No Va who are on anti-depressants or other mood drugs, there would be a lot of ineligible people.

Some would like to expand these laws to include ANYONE who was charged but not convicted of domestic assault etc, I can't see how this has a leg to stand on as it would be a punitive action against someone who may have wrongly accused.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are already state laws that keep persons
> deemed insane from pssessing weapons.
>
> Diagnosed and deemed insane are two different
> things. If the law was amended to deny gun
> ownership to all of the wobble heads in No Va who
> are on anti-depressants or other mood drugs, there
> would be a lot of ineligible people.

There would also be a lot of additional paperwork and employment for bureaucrats and no lives saved. But we would feel good about it.

Shouldn't the desire for an AR-15 classify you as unstable?

Atom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Shouldn't the desire for an AR-15 classify you as
> unstable?


And here come the thought police. If we desire something that the government does not approve of then we are unstable. Some people collect tanks, real tanks and that is their desire, does that make them unstable? If we desire is for a shotgun is that okay but the desire for an AR-15 is unstable?

Tell us Atom, what other thoughts or desires are unacceptable in your world?

JBass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What exactly are you proposing? Do you think
> Doctors should report names of mental health
> patients to the gubmint?

Perhaps. I don't know the exact parameters of who and what should be reported. That should be the subject of the vigorous debate that we won't have.

If you are schizophrenic, you are subject to unpredicable episodes of psychotic behavior. Similarly, people with manic-depression are highly unpredicable. But only the most egregious mental health cases are adjudicated in court. The rest fly under the radar.

> Why should I be able to? Because its my
> constitutional right. Because I want one, because
> I can. Because the bad guy might have one.
> Because its a great investment, because they are
> fun to shoot.

Bullshit. My right to be protected from people who want an AK-47 "because I can" outweighs you're right to own a weapon whose only purpose is to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. You sound like a petulant two year old.

> In reality, I need them because governments, both
> foreign and domestic, have them.

Good grief, this isn't Syria. And I don't expect them to invade us any time soon.

> Right. Lets ban fertilizer, gasoline and
> airplanes, too!

That's a pretty pathetic analogy. You're too smart to say something that dumb.

Barack Obama step down and let Romney take over you failed and you will fail again because you failed before TAKE A KNEE Barack Hussein accept your plan isn't working and walk away.

Atom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Shouldn't the desire for an AR-15 classify you as
> unstable?

At the risk of getting flamed I'll try to give you a serious answer. I don't own one, but I have friends who do. It's a project weapon, it is highly customizable. Highly reliable. If something needs fixing there will be plenty of people to help. If there is a part you need, it can be found.

It shoots one bullet at a time like other rifles. It isn't particularly more destructive than a hunting rifle of various calibres unless someone like the Colorado guy attaches a super-high-capacity magazine to it.

It has history, and has been sold in semi-automatic form to civilians since the early 1960's. As in almost a decade before "Pong" if the video game link is an issue.

Let me follow up with a question... what exactly about it causes you to believe someone who would want it is unstable? Because video games show its fully-automatic cousins? Because it is "tacticool" or scary looking?

Back to the high-cap magazine. Would I have a problem with banning 100-round drums? Nope. It would slow someone down a little, three to five seconds between magazine changes maybe. At least while he's changing magazines he's not shooting. I think more practical solutions like having a fire alarm go off when someone opens a fire door would help, kind of like hardening the cockpit door keeps a guy with a pansy knife from taking over an airplane and crashing it into things.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2012 05:51PM by justsayin.

Arrogant Kenyan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Barack Obama step down and let Romney take over
> you failed and you will fail again because you
> failed before TAKE A KNEE Barack Hussein accept
> your plan isn't working and walk away.

You're an ass. At least JBass has the mental capacity to form a cogent argument. You just fall under the "racist jerk" category.

^^^^^^^^^^^ anon jb-ass post

Good Reply Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Atom Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Shouldn't the desire for an AR-15 classify you
> as
> > unstable?
>
>
> And here come the thought police. If we desire
> something that the government does not approve of
> then we are unstable. Some people collect tanks,
> real tanks and that is their desire, does that
> make them unstable? If we desire is for a shotgun
> is that okay but the desire for an AR-15 is
> unstable?
>
> Tell us Atom, what other thoughts or desires are
> unacceptable in your world?


Dont bother responding to Atom, hes made terrorist threats on here before and really is an idiot. Best to just ignore him when a decent discussion was underway.

Actually, a fire alarm might have resulted in more deaths. People would stand up in the line of fire. The lights in the theater would go on too.

Oh Please... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JBass Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

> Bullshit. My right to be protected from people who
> want an AK-47 "because I can" outweighs you're
> right to own a weapon whose only purpose is to
> kill as many people as possible as quickly as
> possible. You sound like a petulant two year old.

Bullshit you have no right to prevent others from owning legal things because you dont like them. I want to be protected against partisan political attacks and people rambling like idiots that dont understand guns when something like this happens but im not.

And just for the hell of it. Please tell me how a no AK law will stop people from killing you with one?

Please let us all know how criminals will follow the no gun law?

Please tell us how people who wont follow thou shall not kill will follow thou shall not have guns?

Tell me 1 just 1 time someone has wanted to go shoot people seen a sign on the door banning guns and decided not to because he didnt want to break the no gun law?

Tell me why places where guns are banned have gun crimes if gun bans work?

"You didn't build that Somebody else build them tar balls."

B. Obama
last day 1/13/13
Attachments:

Republicans- Agianst abortion, pro death penalty. Guns don't kill. People do. But other countries can't get nukes or chemical weapons. Because they are designed to kill. Like guns. No wait.

Lester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, a fire alarm might have resulted in more
> deaths. People would stand up in the line of
> fire. The lights in the theater would go on too.


If the theory that the door was propped open at some point before he came through it is correct, the alarm would have gone off at that point and response would have been on the scene before he could get his shit together. Yeah maybe if he had an accomplice that set off an alarm he'd have time to be prepared outside to shoot at people as they filed out, but at least he wouldn't have been shooting into a crowd.

If the door had an alarm, under speculations I have read about his path into the place I doubt sixty or seventy people would have been wounded. One would think for a popular first-run night-time showing that the theater would have security at the side doors just to handle freeloaders trying to get in but that's another issue.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2012 07:41PM by justsayin.

Oh Please... Wrote:

> I don't think it's too much to ask of someone who
> wants to purchase a lethal weapon whose sole
> intent is to kill that they go through a rigorous
> screening process.


Meanwhile, 13,000 people will die this year in DUI accidents (including hundreds of children). Shouldn't we screen alcohol purchasers too? After all, alcohol's sole purpose is to get people drunk.

Alcohol's sole purpose is to get drunk. A gun's sole purpose is to kill. Difference? We might as well let people have chemical weapons and nukes, let's throw in tanks as well.

Does 2concerned own any firearms?

graybeard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alcohol's sole purpose is to get drunk. A gun's
> sole purpose is to kill. Difference? We might as
> well let people have chemical weapons and nukes,
> let's throw in tanks as well.


^ Casualty of the 60s.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does 2concerned own any firearms?


clearly not as he has no understanding of them, i hope not at least

graybeard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alcohol's sole purpose is to get drunk. A gun's
> sole purpose is to kill. Difference? We might as
> well let people have chemical weapons and nukes,
> let's throw in tanks as well.


A gun's sole purpose is not to kill, it is to shoot a bullet out of the barrel accurately. The vast majority of guns and bullets are never used to kill.

Good Reply Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> graybeard Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Alcohol's sole purpose is to get drunk. A gun's
> > sole purpose is to kill. Difference? We might
> as
> > well let people have chemical weapons and
> nukes,
> > let's throw in tanks as well.
>
>
> A gun's sole purpose is not to kill, it is to
> shoot a bullet out of the barrel accurately. The
> vast majority of guns and bullets are never used
> to kill.

That would imply its actually shooter who has the purpose of killing not the gun. Much more pc to blame the gun lol

Looking quickly I read the thread title as:

Obama mentally unstable. Shouldn't be able to buy guns.

lol

the gun had nothing to do with it Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good Reply Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > graybeard Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Alcohol's sole purpose is to get drunk. A
> gun's
> > > sole purpose is to kill. Difference? We might
> > as
> > > well let people have chemical weapons and
> > nukes,
> > > let's throw in tanks as well.
> >
> >
> > A gun's sole purpose is not to kill, it is to
> > shoot a bullet out of the barrel accurately.
> The
> > vast majority of guns and bullets are never
> used
> > to kill.
>
> That would imply its actually shooter who has the
> purpose of killing not the gun. Much more pc to
> blame the gun lol


True, they like to blame the gun but put the person on trial.

Oh Please... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JBass Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What exactly are you proposing? Do you think
> > Doctors should report names of mental health
> > patients to the gubmint?
>
> Perhaps. I don't know the exact parameters of who
> and what should be reported. That should be the
> subject of the vigorous debate that we won't
> have.
>
> If you are schizophrenic, you are subject to
> unpredicable episodes of psychotic behavior.
> Similarly, people with manic-depression are highly
> unpredicable. But only the most egregious mental
> health cases are adjudicated in court. The rest
> fly under the radar.
>
> > Why should I be able to? Because its my
> > constitutional right. Because I want one,
> because
> > I can. Because the bad guy might have one.
> > Because its a great investment, because they
> are
> > fun to shoot.
>
> Bullshit. My right to be protected from people who
> want an AK-47 "because I can" outweighs you're
> right to own a weapon whose only purpose is to
> kill as many people as possible as quickly as
> possible. You sound like a petulant two year old.

Which amendment was that again? I swear I dont remember anything about a 'Right to be protected against people who want guns'

If you want to protect yourself from people with AK-47s, Id suggest going with something in a larger caliber. You sound ignorant when you say you have a right to something that strips me of mine. Only one of us here is trying to make the other person do something they dont want to. As for the rest, Ill give a shout out to "Good Reply" and his summation that guns were built to fire bullets out of guns, no tot kill people.

As far as sounding like a 2 year old, I dont care what you think I sound like. Your opinion of me is irrelevant. I have a right to my guns, you dont have the right to take that from me. Its okay, really. Go lick the boots of your overlords and maybe they will brush your wool for you.