Mass Shootings-Why Do We Insist On Thinking Anything Can Be Done?

Hahaha...touchy a bit? Can you show me where I have been advocating for gun control?

 

Permits

 

Ah....so basically your feelings are hurt because no one is talking about your ideas. Got it.

 

How is that gun control?

 

My feelings are hurt because everybody talks a good game - like you try to do, but when it comes time to save some lives, all I run across are B.S. artists and big egos pretending they are winning some freaking Internet debate.

And, while you're trying to be a smart ass, lawyers in Florida are suing the government on behalf of victims of the Florida mass shooting... and wait for it... nah, forget it. You wouldn't understand.

 

Actually...your ideas are total bullspit

 

According to my Black's Law Dictionary as it applies to what I said (and Black's is the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the courts), permits are "permission from a governmental entity to do that which is otherwise illegal to do."

If I have a Right to keep and bear Arms, I don't need permission. Permission is an infringement of the Right.

 

Says the guy promoting communism on the installment plan - Let's see how it plays out in Florida. I'll bet the government pays out based out on many of the principles I brought up. BTW, my ideas have been posted many times before this mass shooting ever happened.

 

So you don't care who has a gun. Clearly it's you who doesn't care about saving lives.

All a gun permit does is ensure that the person has gone through a background check. Why is that a bad thing?

 

I'm responding to the OP. I can't imagine a reasonable solution that doesn't involve gun control. I don't know what posts you want to refer me to, but you can send a link to them by right-clicking the post number. Easier than trying to locate them by number in a 21-page long thread.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHA.....'communism'? Epic fail on your part.

 

A background check only tells you what happened in the past. If a person is known to pose a threat to themselves or others and you can't trust them, YOU DON'T PUT THEM BACK ON THE STREETS! What's so hard about that?

A background check is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Presume a person is guilty before they exercise a constitutional right??? What are the limits on that?

 

You're the one pushing it and demonstrating either a hatred or ignorance of our laws.

 

OMG, really? Even when I post the page, you're still going to have to look for the posts.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-thinking-anything-can-be-done.527674/page-10

 

Right...so if a person was convicted of a felony...they don't get a gun permit. Isn't that a good thing?

And no, a background check is not a violation. The state I live in requires a background check to get a gun permit to make sure they aren't giving one to a convicted felon, convicted of a violent crime or domestic violence, etc. You know...people who shouldn't have a gun

 

I don't think you know what 'communism' means. And I really don't have the energy to explain it to you

 

I agree that passing more gun control laws will never stop mentally disturbed or just outright evil beings from the mass killings at school or anywhere else. But where I depart from your beliefs is in regards to controlling entry into schools, by literally going into lock down once the kids are all inside. In fact, if this is practiced strictly, indeed it would minimize school shootings. And the same thing goes for places like churches.

Why the feds do not mandate this and tie it to funding education is utterly insane. My wife before she retired taught school in a bad section of town here, an alternative school, and they were locked down during school hours. And they had a couple armed guards, policemen who worked part time to suppliment their police income. These were the men who would allow people in and out.

For if you take away the access from these mentally disturbed young people, they cannot enter into a school and kill other kids. No more than one can enter into a jail or prison and gun people down. Anyways, the new school being built in the county right up the road from me looks just like the private prisons here in this state. If you did not know it was a school, one would assume it was a new prison. The way these new schools are built here in the south, are quite easy to secure and lock down.

But IMO, since something like this would actually work, there is no great push to implement it. Why? Well, one would have to get the idea that there is no motivation to actually address the problem in the most common sense manner. We stopped using common sense long ago. Instead, we seem to rather prefer to not stop it for it is has become another political tool, and the corporations that own our MSM, all 6 of them love the profits generated by these mass killings. Why else is one to think?

I think my problem is, I grew up on a farm, and we had to keep the foxes, the chikun' hawks and egg sucking dogs out of our chicken pen and laying house. And we used chicken wire fencing, even across the top of the pens, to keep out the killers. We protected our chickens. And yet we will not do the same to protect our kids? Well, if protecting our eggs and chikuns' was in the least bit, political, we would have kept all of the egg sucking dogs, foxes and chicken hawks very well fed and never had an egg for breakfast nor fried chicken for sunday supper.

 

We have two competing governments in the United States. The one in charge is an illegal / de facto Federal - Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations. I admit they are in charge, but most of what they do is blatantly unconstitutional. There is a thread here where some people want to have (IIRC) some kind of Constitutional Convention of the States and address this.

The other government we have is a de jure / legal Constitutional Republic with a Constitution governing we, the people.

You have chickened out and now want to prey on people's emotions, but bottom line:

I believe that when a person has served their time, been rehabilitated and sent back into society, they should retain all their Rights as freemen. Sending these people back into society that are NOT rehabilitated and giving them a criminal record where they are locked out only insures that you will continue to have a high crime rate.

As for "domestic abuse" cases, it is an emotion laden B.S. law where the system can attempt to deprive you of your Rights for a mere family argument. I know of one case where a guy was found guilty of domestic abuse for having pulled the a telephone cord out of the wall in his own home.

The thought that you think his children's lives are not worth protecting any longer tells me all I need to know about you as a human being.

 

Most High Schools have numerous points of entry. Putting metal detectors and guards at all of them would be quite pricey. We have thousands more schools than airports. I'm not advocating against it, just pointing out that it's quite a bit more to protect.

 

Why do you think we should allow the mentally ill to run amok, unsupervised in our society?

 

Why would the feds have to mandate schools lock the doors once everyone is inside. Isn't it common sense at this point? The school I coach at has been locking the doors for years now. They decided on their own. Didn't need to be told by anyone to do it. I can't understand why all school haven't figured it out. We lock our homes, we lock many office buildings. Why haven't schools figured it out?

 

You're assuming everyone released from prison is rehabilitated. I'm fairly confident that isn't the case for many released.
Anecdotal evidence is useless. I don't care that you 'know' of one case. Great...one case.
Obviously we're never going to agree. You don't care who has a gun whereas I do. I don't want someone convicted of violent crimes to have a gun. Guess I'm strange like that.

 

I don't assume a damn thing. I know that the people coming out of prisons today are NOT rehabilitated.

I also drew up model legislation that will be introduced into the Georgia legislature next year to remedy that situation.

Among some of the things it will do is to eliminate ALL early releases unless that person gets a GED, takes seminars in subjects like looking for a job, getting an apartment, doing their laundry, etc. It's quite detailed and it was good enough that a state senator has decided to submit it.

You and I will never agree. That is our only agreement. But, your mindset is the one that has led to America having more people in prison than any nation on the planet and then locking them out once they've paid for their crimes. So, when you have to live in America, a misdemeanor to a poor person is a life sentence. That is an absolute guarantee that our crime rate will remain high.

 

Yes it is common sense, but do you think you could trust the states to actually mandate it? For it seems if it might inconvenience someone, then that takes it off the table. And it would indeed inconvenience lots of people, students, staff, teachers. But who cares, if you put an end to these mass murders?

Some people, IMO, would scoff at it, claim it would not work, because they are using these mass killings, or trying to use them to get rid of the 2nd amendment. That much has become clear. I have no doubt about that.

I heard hillary say that gun manufacturers, gun shops, etc, should not be exempt from litigation when the victims or victim's families are injured by guns or killed by them. Just the lawsuits when won, from the various school shootings would bankrupt gun manufacturers, put gun shops out of business, or increase their cost of insurance as to put guns out of reach financially except for the very well off. So there is a sneaky arse way to go after gun ownership without touching the 2nd amendment, and these anti gun nuts would go that route if they could. For some of these people will not rest nor shut up until we look like Australia or communist china.

 

The problem with not allowing a person who has had a mental problem own a firearm is in a country with 320 million people you can run into a number of situations like this:

A person (man or woman) suffers a tragedy. Like their parents getting killed in an accident. They lapse into depression and try to commit suicide. They are committed to some time in an institution since obviously they are a threat to themselves. They get out. Get counseling. A couple of years later they've moved past it and they're like anyone else.

But someone starts stalking them (or some other threatening behavior). They wish to buy a firearm for protection, the seller runs a background check and their name promptly pops up on a list refusing them purchase.

What about them?