Man shoots wife and pets, blames NRA

I still have no intention of wasting my time trying to fathom the bizarre nonsensical content of your posts.

 

Then leave the discussion entirely.

 

Why don't you take your own advice since my position still stands?

 

The entire premise of the thread, that being somehow the NRA forced the individual in question to murder his family and left him with no other choice, is nothing short of nonsense. As such the discussion needs those that do not believe the delusional rantings of a mentally ill individual, as if they were valid and accurate accusations of wrongdoing. The ongoing discussion requires logical thinking devoid of political ideology and loyalty.

 

Yet another asinine strawman load of bovine excrement thereby justifying my positions WRT to ignoring your vapid content and that the NRA has RESPONSIBILITY for enabling the mentally unstable to have access to lethal firearms.

 

Thus demonstrating the irrational, seething, all-consuming hatred of the NRA that has been demonstrated on the part of yourself throughout numerous discussions, time and time again.

The NRA is no more at fault for this incident, than children are at fault for being raped because they supposedly enticed a pedophile into doing such.

 

Says the guy who linked the Obama changes, I pointed out that it included people with HIV, you went into paroxysms of rage, and it turns out you hadn't even read your own source.

 

Calls me a bigot then doubles down on saying people with HIV shouldn't own firearms.

Being a leftist results in depression.

If we disarmed Democrats we'd solve the murder rate overnight.

 

Thank you for proving my point about your vapid content!

 

Wrong, just like always!

 

Thank you for establishing in your content above that your bigotry is obstructing your grasp of the subject matter.

 

An interesting argument. First of all, I love your coin 'let no tragedy go to waste'! Is it your own creation or did you read it somewhere else?

Don't we blame the pharmacist for having dangerous drugs on their shelves and isn't that why government decides what drugs to have on the shelves and which one needs a prescription? So maybe it isn't such a far-fetched conclusion to make that the legal accessibility of guns are partly responsible for shootings in the very same way as the accessibility of drugs.

 

Maybe it's a good idea to start praying again.

 

...because restricted drugs are difficult to get?

 

Exactly, and that is why making restricted drugs difficult to get ought to be adapted into law making firearms restricted and difficult to get because drugs (that are classified as dangerous) are on par with firearms (which ought to be classified as dangerous) should be restricted.

 

Im sorry, my sarcasm emitter must be malfunctioning... I'll rephrase.

Restricted drugs are not difficult to get. Especially not for the criminal element. Theres no reason to think guns would be.

The war on guns will be at least as big a boondoggle as the war on drugs has been.

 

This is a failing of the state not the NRA. it is the states duty to prove a person is incapable of exercising their right through due process of law before they can subjugate them to having their rights curtailed.

just dubbing people mentally unfit without due process is esentillialy an authoritarian dictatorship.

No, the NRA was fighting to stop any legislation that would turn people into second class citizens based on accusations. Again it is the state's responsibility to prove someone incapable of excersizing their rights through due process of law. if they didn't we would live in a police state. why do you want that?

 

I am all for a mentally desturbed person being banned from buying a gun. But deeming a person to be mentally disturbed and thus a subjugated citizen status basically a person forced by government to wear a scarlet letter requires due process of law. you cant just take rights away from people without reason.

Because a medical professional isn't a judge and a jury. They should NEVER be given that power.

 

Drugs aren't difficult to get. I have see crack heads with roasted brains get drugs. if they can get them anybody can.

 

Here, in Sweden (you may have heard) we have been having some serious problems with imported crime. What is the police doing about it? Not very much because it is taboo to name names. But I think that we and you could make some big improvements in our and your problems if we set our heart on it and get serious.

 

How did such pan out with regard to the current opioid crisis the united states is currently besieged with? Government oversight apparently did not stop these substances from being highly addictive, or otherwise protect the public at large from the resulting fallout.

 

Getting to the heart of the matter and getting serious requires recognizing that the people themselves are responsible for crimes, not the availability of certain implements.

 

So, if a man breaks into your house crazed and violent, call a doctor first? Unless you are a trained and certified expert, how do you know he is acting crazy- maybe you are the crazy one in his house and don't realize it? Possible, and since you are not an expert- you must call one before you shoot, because it may be your fault.

Yes, that is ludicrous and unrealistic- a stretch of a point.
Since the anti-gun lobby wants to do that to every American citizen- are we all to be "subjugated"?
Would that then remove the "scarlet letter" applied individually and make us all equal- rather than all "subjugated"?

The reason is that unstable minds are often violent minds. It's placing some limit on the group of people that typically are similar to those who commit mass shooting and killings. We don't give drivers licenses to people who's condition prevents them from driving safely. That can be vision, bad judgement, track record. We don't allow people with marginal mental instability to become soldiers.
However we seem to place no restriction like that on politicians, and we can certainly see the problems created by that everyday.

 

Says the guy who didn't read his own source.

 

Are you saying your source in your post didn't classify those with HIV as one of the groups under the Obama requirements.

Go ahead and say that again.