Gun Control

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
You screen for known mental illnesses and take a drug test. Our gov isn’t perfect, but I think the majority of people would pass just fine. If you fail you get treatment and if your treatment works your good to go. Is that not reasonable?[/quote]

Nancy Lanza would have probably passed both tests.

Her community knew she possessed guns and possessed a very mentally ill child AND took him to the shooting range and kept her family life a secret.

Why did they not take into their own hands to call her out on it?

If you found out today that someone like her was your next door neighbor and you had children going to school locally, how would that knowledge affect you? What would you do?

a. Go into the denial
b. Go to the authorities
c. Go to her and let her know of your discomfort with her training a mentally disturbed child and raising him with her passion for guns.
d. Go to other neighbors and raise awareness of your concerns and seek a solution.
e. Something else

Is part of the solution your offered for a test screening perhaps a reflection of “not wanting to get involved” or take into your own hands the protection and safety of your community/society?

242

[quote]conservativedog wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
In order to drive a car (by yourself) you have to pass a test, why should it be any different with firearms?

Also, with the regards to the: Because it’s a basic human right argument, well, unfortunately rights are pretty much ALAYS conditional.

[/quote]

There is no constitutional right guaranteeing your rights having anything to do with cars. Driving a car is a privilege your state extends to you and guns rights were intended to help fight the little perfect dictators, I mean politicians in case they decided to overextend the powers of their office.

CAREER POLITICIANS with these 20+ years in power were never the intention at the beginning of our country.

YOU and ME were expected to give service to our country from time time to time when needed then go back to our homes and regular jobs. Not collect outrageous pensions and power over our citizens. Most importantly never attack the constitution, your rights are not " pretty much ALAYS conditional" - don’t know where you received your education but that is a lie.

The most protected people: FEDERAL PRISONS cannot even PREVENT prisoners from rioting and murdering one another. NO GUNS & KNIVES allowed in there. Why does OBAMA believe taking away more gun rights is the #1 Answer?

They couldn’t even stop the GUN MASSACRE at FORT HOOD. OBAMA visited to console the families of 13 murdered and 29 maimed and wounded soldiers but failed to include this incident when his speech included the other mentally ill massacres.

Remember it is a MUSLIM on trial for that horrific carnage. Soldiers aren’t even allowed to walk around with guns on base, yet a MENTAL NUTT JOB Muslim Army psychiatrist managed to murder his fellow soldiers.

OBAMA GOING FOR GUNS AS MOST EXPECTED - NO CONTROL OF MENTALLY ILL:
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/12/white-house-obama-would-support-new-gun-laws-152297.html
[/quote]

‘Controlling’ mentally ill people would almost entail a dimmunition of rights (albeit temporary at least).

Also, please drop the Obama drama! I’m not an American citizen + even if was I likely wouldn’t have voted for the guy.

243

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]conservativedog wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
In order to drive a car (by yourself) you have to pass a test, why should it be any different with firearms?

Also, with the regards to the: Because it’s a basic human right argument, well, unfortunately rights are pretty much ALAYS conditional.

[/quote]

There is no constitutional right guaranteeing your rights having anything to do with cars. Driving a car is a privilege your state extends to you and guns rights were intended to help fight the little perfect dictators, I mean politicians in case they decided to overextend the powers of their office.

CAREER POLITICIANS with these 20+ years in power were never the intention at the beginning of our country.

YOU and ME were expected to give service to our country from time time to time when needed then go back to our homes and regular jobs. Not collect outrageous pensions and power over our citizens. Most importantly never attack the constitution, your rights are not " pretty much ALAYS conditional" - don’t know where you received your education but that is a lie.

The most protected people: FEDERAL PRISONS cannot even PREVENT prisoners from rioting and murdering one another. NO GUNS & KNIVES allowed in there. Why does OBAMA believe taking away more gun rights is the #1 Answer?

They couldn’t even stop the GUN MASSACRE at FORT HOOD. OBAMA visited to console the families of 13 murdered and 29 maimed and wounded soldiers but failed to include this incident when his speech included the other mentally ill massacres.

Remember it is a MUSLIM on trial for that horrific carnage. Soldiers aren’t even allowed to walk around with guns on base, yet a MENTAL NUTT JOB Muslim Army psychiatrist managed to murder his fellow soldiers.

OBAMA GOING FOR GUNS AS MOST EXPECTED - NO CONTROL OF MENTALLY ILL:
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/12/white-house-obama-would-support-new-gun-laws-152297.html
[/quote]

‘Controlling’ mentally ill people would almost certainly entail a dimmunition of rights (albeit temporary at least).

Also, please drop the Obama drama! I’m not an American citizen + even if was I likely wouldn’t have voted for the guy.
[/quote]

244

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
You screen for known mental illnesses and take a drug test. Our gov isn’t perfect, but I think the majority of people would pass just fine. If you fail you get treatment and if your treatment works your good to go. Is that not reasonable?[/quote]

Nancy Lanza would have probably passed both tests.

Her community knew she possessed guns and possessed a very mentally ill child AND took him to the shooting range and kept her family life a secret.

Why did they not take into their own hands to call her out on it?

If you found out today that someone like her was your next door neighbor and you had children going to school locally, how would that knowledge affect you? What would you do?

a. Go into the denial
b. Go to the authorities
c. Go to her and let her know of your discomfort with her training a mentally disturbed child and raising him with her passion for guns.
d. Go to other neighbors and raise awareness of your concerns and seek a solution.
e. Something else

Is part of the solution your offered for a test screening perhaps a reflection of “not wanting to get involved” or take into your own hands the protection and safety of your community/society?
[/quote]

Absolutely, I’m suggesting steps I think are steps in the right direction. In almost every situation discussed here I think personal and community responsibility should be stressed and considered. The mother should be held accountable to a degree. He lack of parenting and firearm safety makes her to some degree at fault.

Getting involved is important and we as a community aren’t involved enough, but that’s also part of our culture and privacy is a big issue in the U.S.

245

[quote]ZEB wrote:
H factor,

Again I ask you, what happened to the ignore function you threatened to ignore me yet you just can’t huh? Know why? The truth hurts bud. You have to stay in there slinging away at me because I hit on the truth. Ouch! Maybe the liberal side wants to fight with me while your libertarian side wants to ignore me. I’d say at this point you liberal side is pretty dominant-LOL

You are a poser of the highest order and you just can’t stand the fact that I called you out on it.

Keep blabbing away H factor, but at this point I think it’s pretty clear that you are mostly a liberal who hides behind the libertarian mask. Most know now that when they talk to you they’d better be watching for the mask to come off.

By the way we’re still waiting for all those posts talking about how Obama has run up the debt and nationalized health care. As a um…libertarian that should infuriate you. But in reality you’re so liberal you can’t even fake a post against Obama can you? LOL…But attacking Ronald Reagan comes pretty easy for you.

Yeah…you’re a libertarian…Ha ha ha…

You’re actually nothing new one more Internet poser only you’ve been exposed.

And now you have to live with it. :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Zeb in your world I haven’t done that have I? But I have posts against nationalizing health care and posts against Obama. That is an undeniable fact. Of course you ignore that because again it doesn’t fit what you want to believe of me. You wanted me to be a stalker just because I looked at some of your old posts because that might make you look better when your own words make you look like such a dipshit.

Now you want me to be a far left liberal because your own words make you look like such a dipshit. We’re well aware of the double standard you have. Reagan tripling the debt? No big deal to Zeb. Reagan raising the debt ceiling? No big deal to Zeb. GWB exploding the size of government at all levels? No big deal to Zeb. Obama doing any of this? StoP THE FUCKING PRESSES GODDAMN LIBERALS GET SOME CONSERVATIVES BACK IN THERE!

I point that out and you read it as an Obama fan. I haven’t posted ANYTHING remotely Obama fanboy. Fucking prove it if I have. Fucking prove it. You think pointing out you’re full of shit by saying well you sure were quiet when GWB did this is praising Obama? You would think that cause you’re a nitwit idiot who wants to be right so damn bad, but you’ve been PROVEN wrong.

And you can’t prove what you’re saying with my own posts. I have plenty of them. Go on do it you chickenshit. You can’t do it because I haven’t praised Obama in the slightest. Not a single fucking time.

Prove it if I have. Quit running your mouth and prove it.

You can’t.

You won’t.

Cause you’re full of shit on the issue and EVERYONE knows it.

246

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Absolutely, I’m suggesting steps I think are steps in the right direction. In almost every situation discussed here I think personal and community responsibility should be stressed and considered. The mother should be held accountable to a degree. He lack of parenting and firearm safety makes her to some degree at fault.

Getting involved is important and we as a community aren’t involved enough, but that’s also part of our culture and privacy is a big issue in the U.S.

[/quote]

My husband made that very point you made.
Community involvement would be part of the solution but American culture would not allow for that.

That is a real shame.

247

I heard H Factor and Zeb were fighting behind the rec center after school today at 4PM…

248

[quote]johnnytang24 wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
In order to drive a car (by yourself) you have to pass a test, why should it be any different with firearms?

Also, with the regards to the: Because it’s a basic human right argument, well, unfortunately rights are pretty much ALAYS conditional.

[/quote]

You don’t need to pass any test to drive on your own property.[/quote]

Go ahead and fail that sobriety test if you want.

249

[quote]storey420 wrote:
I heard H Factor and Zeb were fighting behind the rec center after school today at 4PM…[/quote]

Which one’s Jerry and Which ones’ Buddy?

250

[quote]storey420 wrote:
I heard H Factor and Zeb were fighting behind the rec center after school today at 4PM…[/quote]

H brought a .22 to school

251

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:
I heard H Factor and Zeb were fighting behind the rec center after school today at 4PM…[/quote]

Which one’s Jerry and Which ones’ Buddy?

Love that movie.

252

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:
I heard H Factor and Zeb were fighting behind the rec center after school today at 4PM…[/quote]

H brought a .22 to school[/quote]

Are you sure it wasn’t brass knuckles?

253

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
In order to drive a car (by yourself) you have to pass a test, why should it be any different with firearms?

Also, with the regards to the: Because it’s a basic human right argument, well, unfortunately rights are pretty much ALAYS conditional.
[/quote]

I also don’t believe anyone has the right to make me take a driver’s test or have I.D. to prove who I am, etc.[/quote]

Word, my blind cousin would love to live in your dream world too. Hates that he can’t drive.

254

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
In order to drive a car (by yourself) you have to pass a test, why should it be any different with firearms?

Also, with the regards to the: Because it’s a basic human right argument, well, unfortunately rights are pretty much ALAYS conditional.
[/quote]

I also don’t believe anyone has the right to make me take a driver’s test or have I.D. to prove who I am, etc.[/quote]

Word, my blind cousin would love to live in your dream world too. Hates that he can’t drive.[/quote]

He can’t and it would be stupid to for him to take a test to prove it.

255

Removing the need for a driving test would not remove the need for common sense.

In fact it may actually improve the exercise of common sense.

Relying so much on institutions to test us we fail to test ourselves.

256

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
H factor,

Again I ask you, what happened to the ignore function you threatened to ignore me yet you just can’t huh? Know why? The truth hurts bud. You have to stay in there slinging away at me because I hit on the truth. Ouch! Maybe the liberal side wants to fight with me while your libertarian side wants to ignore me. I’d say at this point you liberal side is pretty dominant-LOL

You are a poser of the highest order and you just can’t stand the fact that I called you out on it.

Keep blabbing away H factor, but at this point I think it’s pretty clear that you are mostly a liberal who hides behind the libertarian mask. Most know now that when they talk to you they’d better be watching for the mask to come off.

By the way we’re still waiting for all those posts talking about how Obama has run up the debt and nationalized health care. As a um…libertarian that should infuriate you. But in reality you’re so liberal you can’t even fake a post against Obama can you? LOL…But attacking Ronald Reagan comes pretty easy for you.

Yeah…you’re a libertarian…Ha ha ha…

You’re actually nothing new one more Internet poser only you’ve been exposed.

And now you have to live with it. :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Zeb in your world I haven’t done that have I? But I have posts against nationalizing health care and posts against Obama. That is an undeniable fact. Of course you ignore that because again it doesn’t fit what you want to believe of me. You wanted me to be a stalker just because I looked at some of your old posts because that might make you look better when your own words make you look like such a dipshit.

Now you want me to be a far left liberal because your own words make you look like such a dipshit. We’re well aware of the double standard you have. Reagan tripling the debt? No big deal to Zeb. Reagan raising the debt ceiling? No big deal to Zeb. GWB exploding the size of government at all levels? No big deal to Zeb. Obama doing any of this? StoP THE FUCKING PRESSES GODDAMN LIBERALS GET SOME CONSERVATIVES BACK IN THERE!

I point that out and you read it as an Obama fan. I haven’t posted ANYTHING remotely Obama fanboy. Fucking prove it if I have. Fucking prove it. You think pointing out you’re full of shit by saying well you sure were quiet when GWB did this is praising Obama? You would think that cause you’re a nitwit idiot who wants to be right so damn bad, but you’ve been PROVEN wrong.

And you can’t prove what you’re saying with my own posts. I have plenty of them. Go on do it you chickenshit. You can’t do it because I haven’t praised Obama in the slightest. Not a single fucking time.

Prove it if I have. Quit running your mouth and prove it.

You can’t.

You won’t.

Cause you’re full of shit on the issue and EVERYONE knows it. [/quote]

It must suck to be you huh?

On the one hand you want to pass yourself off as a libertarian and on the other hand you just can’t wait to attack republicans and give dems a free pass. What are you going to do now? If you continue on your merry way others will realize that I’ve been correct about you all along. Yet, if you actually have to post against your hero Obama and the free spending dems you might throw up all over your keyboard. And it will also defeat your entire point of attempting to create this “libertarian” message board persona while at the same time attacking republicans and giving dems a free pass.

Yep…it sucks to be you now doesn’t it?

And that’s why you are unable to let this go. You’ve been outed as the liberal that you are and you could post 100 more times trying to say otherwise but we both know that from this point on when you post people are going to be watching with a scrutiny that was not there before. You’re also pissed off that I outed you. Ha ha…

It has been a pleasure watching you squirm post after post. And I’m not done with you yet bud.

:wink:

257

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Removing the need for a driving test would not remove the need for common sense.

In fact it may actually improve the exercise of common sense.

Relying so much on institutions to test us we fail to test ourselves.

[/quote]

What about the folks who don’t think they need to test themselves? Big government is bad, no government is bad, some government is good. It’s all about extremes isn’t it?

258

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
In order to drive a car (by yourself) you have to pass a test, why should it be any different with firearms?

Also, with the regards to the: Because it’s a basic human right argument, well, unfortunately rights are pretty much ALAYS conditional.

[/quote]

The United States would be much better served by requiring members of Congress pass a basic test on the Constitution and Civics.

259

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
In order to drive a car (by yourself) you have to pass a test, why should it be any different with firearms?

Also, with the regards to the: Because it’s a basic human right argument, well, unfortunately rights are pretty much ALAYS conditional.

[/quote]

The United States would be much better served by requiring members of Congress pass a basic test on the Constitution and Civics.[/quote]

How about making voters pass a basic 25 question test to make sure that they actually have enough information to make an informed decision?

260

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Removing the need for a driving test would not remove the need for common sense.

In fact it may actually improve the exercise of common sense.

Relying so much on institutions to test us we fail to test ourselves.

[/quote]

What about the folks who don’t think they need to test themselves?[/quote]

That is where strong members of our community like yourself should step in and call them out on it, no?

Say one of these who didn’t think they need to test themselves lived in your street and you saw him driving recklessly. There must be ways as a small community we deal with these people. Don’t employ them, don’t buy in their business, isolate socially, I don’t have the answer to be honest but the driving test from the government does not protect me very well:

Take the old ladies here in Florida who have passed their driving test: the government has given them permission to continue to drive. I say common sense says they should test every year past a certain age.

Take the teenagers that have just barely begun to get hands on experience in driving and feel they can use their cell phones; that is utter failure in common sense.

A government test has given them the green light to behave this way and bolsters
a false sense of self confidence.

So in a way you are testing, passing and breeding retards.

Yet that does not happen and they are the drivers I consider most dangerous.