quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The link leads nowhere. However, it would be true, handing guns to mentally ill people will not be covered under these measures. To bad this Taya didnt go public and say something as stupid like: "Kyle don't give guns to the mentally infirm as therapy, they, like you are making it up as they go along."

Nobody has ever said these measures will stop all gundeath. Seems like that old worn out chestnut is pissing in the wind, like al_SheBubba does.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

I notice a lot of people are upset about the mentally ill issue:)
mind you they were more furious before the announcement.
no regs, thats the best. yaay

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The link leads nowhere. However, it would be true, handing guns to mentally ill people will not be covered under these measures. To bad this Taya didnt go public and say something as stupid like: "Kyle don't give guns to the mentally infirm as therapy, they, like you are making it up as they go along."

Nobody has ever said these measures will stop all gundeath. Seems like that old worn out chestnut is pissing in the wind, like al_SheBubba does.

Actually, by his own admission there are no gun deaths they would have prevented, he just wants to look like he is doing something when most of what he does is already codified in law and the rest is telling his agencies to violate current law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The link leads nowhere. However, it would be true, handing guns to mentally ill people will not be covered under these measures. To bad this Taya didnt go public and say something as stupid like: "Kyle don't give guns to the mentally infirm as therapy, they, like you are making it up as they go along."

Nobody has ever said these measures will stop all gundeath. Seems like that old worn out chestnut is pissing in the wind, like al_SheBubba does.

Actually, by his own admission there are no gun deaths they would have prevented, he just wants to look like he is doing something when most of what he does is already codified in law and the rest is telling his agencies to violate current law.

I think that's one of the major problems that people that are against this have...already law for the most part AND they would not have stopped any of the deaths.

Nor...I don't believe...has anyone made the claim that Obama said "they would stop all gun death".

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The link leads nowhere. However, it would be true, handing guns to mentally ill people will not be covered under these measures. To bad this Taya didnt go public and say something as stupid like: "Kyle don't give guns to the mentally infirm as therapy, they, like you are making it up as they go along."

Nobody has ever said these measures will stop all gundeath. Seems like that old worn out chestnut is pissing in the wind, like al_SheBubba does.

Actually, by his own admission there are no gun deaths they would have prevented, he just wants to look like he is doing something when most of what he does is already codified in law and the rest is telling his agencies to violate current law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The link leads nowhere. However, it would be true, handing guns to mentally ill people will not be covered under these measures. To bad this Taya didnt go public and say something as stupid like: "Kyle don't give guns to the mentally infirm as therapy, they, like you are making it up as they go along."

Nobody has ever said these measures will stop all gundeath. Seems like that old worn out chestnut is pissing in the wind, like al_SheBubba does.

Actually, by his own admission there are no gun deaths they would have prevented, he just wants to look like he is doing something when most of what he does is already codified in law and the rest is telling his agencies to violate current law.

I think that's one of the major problems that people that are against this have...already law for the most part AND they would not have stopped any of the deaths.

Nor...I don't believe...has anyone made the claim that Obama said "they would stop all gun death".

He didn't, but gun grabbers like to pretend that people who acctually understand the 2nd don't support one thing or another because it won't stop all gun deaths. Like Joe's they are law abiding citizens till they aren't it is a meaningless mantra they repeat thinking it has some bearing on the debate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The link leads nowhere. However, it would be true, handing guns to mentally ill people will not be covered under these measures. To bad this Taya didnt go public and say something as stupid like: "Kyle don't give guns to the mentally infirm as therapy, they, like you are making it up as they go along."

Nobody has ever said these measures will stop all gundeath. Seems like that old worn out chestnut is pissing in the wind, like al_SheBubba does.

Actually, by his own admission there are no gun deaths they would have prevented, he just wants to look like he is doing something when most of what he does is already codified in law and the rest is telling his agencies to violate current law.

I think that's one of the major problems that people that are against this have...already law for the most part AND they would not have stopped any of the deaths.

Nor...I don't believe...has anyone made the claim that Obama said "they would stop all gun death".

He didn't, but gun grabbers like to pretend that people who acctually understand the 2nd don't support one thing or another because it won't stop all gun deaths. Like Joe's they are law abiding citizens till they aren't it is a meaningless mantra they repeat thinking it has some bearing on the debate.

When I see all these mass shootings and even smaller scale shootings, I never see one of these '2nd amendment' types going all 'Call of Duty' on the active shooter?

BTW, all those active shooters are 'Honest and Law Abiding' citizens with guns. They do not cease to be honest or law-abiding until....AFTER....they are found guilty in a court of law. Would you trust a 'honest and law abiding' citizen whom is an active shooter at the time with a gun? No of course not! Why should we trust those 'honest and law abiding' citizens with guns? Anyone of them can explode at any moment into a hail of bullets towards innocent people. Because they say we can trust them, right? Like those Oregon militia lunatics that say they are not terrorists (they are terrorists).

In order for things to get fixed, trust has to be restored. Gun nuts can behave as they do normally and have very strict controls on firearms. Or they can start working in their communities not as bullies, or those threatening citizens with 'trust me or else'-like statements. In which case firearm laws will not be as restrictive. Heck, might even see a few laws removed off the books. But gun nuts can not trust others for the length of time needed to make a positive change. Its just not in their behavior or mindset.

There are plenty of firearm owners whom obtained a firearm for no other reason then they distrust other people with firearms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The link leads nowhere. However, it would be true, handing guns to mentally ill people will not be covered under these measures. To bad this Taya didnt go public and say something as stupid like: "Kyle don't give guns to the mentally infirm as therapy, they, like you are making it up as they go along."

Nobody has ever said these measures will stop all gundeath. Seems like that old worn out chestnut is pissing in the wind, like al_SheBubba does.

Actually, by his own admission there are no gun deaths they would have prevented, he just wants to look like he is doing something when most of what he does is already codified in law and the rest is telling his agencies to violate current law.

Its just one of many tools to use in combating a problem. Background checks would not have helped Sandy Hook. What would have helped? A responsible person realizing their son was not fit to ever have access to firearms let alone hold one. Background checks may or may not have helped in preventing San Bernadino. Its hard to say given all the particular bits of information. Lone wolf types with no real 'run in' with the law could obtain firearms fairly easy with a background check before exploding in a rage of bullets....

...That is why there are OTHER tools to employ. You dont make a modern house with just a hammer these days. Takes a huge combination of tools. But tools do not work on their own. They need a human operator. That means the ability to determine if someone is a risk or not. Better to be on the safe side when there is not enough trust in the individual.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The link leads nowhere. However, it would be true, handing guns to mentally ill people will not be covered under these measures. To bad this Taya didnt go public and say something as stupid like: "Kyle don't give guns to the mentally infirm as therapy, they, like you are making it up as they go along."

Nobody has ever said these measures will stop all gundeath. Seems like that old worn out chestnut is pissing in the wind, like al_SheBubba does.

Actually, by his own admission there are no gun deaths they would have prevented, he just wants to look like he is doing something when most of what he does is already codified in law and the rest is telling his agencies to violate current law.

I think that's one of the major problems that people that are against this have...already law for the most part AND they would not have stopped any of the deaths.

Nor...I don't believe...has anyone made the claim that Obama said "they would stop all gun death".

He didn't, but gun grabbers like to pretend that people who acctually understand the 2nd don't support one thing or another because it won't stop all gun deaths. Like Joe's they are law abiding citizens till they aren't it is a meaningless mantra they repeat thinking it has some bearing on the debate.

When I see all these mass shootings and even smaller scale shootings, I never see one of these '2nd amendment' types going all 'Call of Duty' on the active shooter?

BTW, all those active shooters are 'Honest and Law Abiding' citizens with guns. They do not cease to be honest or law-abiding until....AFTER....they are found guilty in a court of law. Would you trust a 'honest and law abiding' citizen whom is an active shooter at the time with a gun? No of course not! Why should we trust those 'honest and law abiding' citizens with guns? Anyone of them can explode at any moment into a hail of bullets towards innocent people. Because they say we can trust them, right? Like those Oregon militia lunatics that say they are not terrorists (they are terrorists).

In order for things to get fixed, trust has to be restored. Gun nuts can behave as they do normally and have very strict controls on firearms. Or they can start working in their communities not as bullies, or those threatening citizens with 'trust me or else'-like statements. In which case firearm laws will not be as restrictive. Heck, might even see a few laws removed off the books. But gun nuts can not trust others for the length of time needed to make a positive change. Its just not in their behavior or mindset.

There are plenty of firearm owners whom obtained a firearm for no other reason then they distrust other people with firearms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
When I see all these mass shootings and even smaller scale shootings, I never see one of these '2nd amendment' types going all 'Call of Duty' on the active shooter?
...