Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: At "least" 27 People killed in Texas church


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: At "least" 27 People killed in Texas church Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: At "least" 27 People killed in Texas church - 11/8/2017 9:36:57 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

You don't understand that laws that are this easily broken, and allow
"Mistakes" of this magnitude-- make the laws BULLSHIT.

Laws that are bullshit, create fucking mayhem and lawlessness.

Explain the "laws" to the families of the victims Sunday,and ask their opinion of your laws.
Make sure you explain that the laws are bullshit, because of all the problems.

Laws that are often not enforced or that can easily be broken are fucking meaningless.





It isn't legal and we need to make screwing up like this illegal.
I think they would be rightly enraged because the Air Force screwed up.
It isn't like anyone legalized what he did.
Your argument is like saying that if someone is driving drunk at 100 mph
the fact that he did it means we need a new law to make it illegal.

If the reporting isn't mandatory, then this sale was legal, wasn't it? Air Force wasn't mandated to report, so technically they didn't screw up. The store that sold the weapon ran a check and it came back okay. They didn't screw up. Or is the air Force mandated to report?

Clearly several people have a problem understanding this.
The sale was legal, but the purchase was not.
It is like buying beer with a fake id the seller doesn't know it is illegal but the buyer does.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to Wayward5oul)
Profile   Post #: 241
RE: At "least" 27 People killed in Texas church - 11/8/2017 9:42:15 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

You don't understand that laws that are this easily broken, and allow
"Mistakes" of this magnitude-- make the laws BULLSHIT.

Laws that are bullshit, create fucking mayhem and lawlessness.

Explain the "laws" to the families of the victims Sunday,and ask their opinion of your laws.
Make sure you explain that the laws are bullshit, because of all the problems.

Laws that are often not enforced or that can easily be broken are fucking meaningless.





It isn't legal and we need to make screwing up like this illegal.
I think they would be rightly enraged because the Air Force screwed up.
It isn't like anyone legalized what he did.
Your argument is like saying that if someone is driving drunk at 100 mph
the fact that he did it means we need a new law to make it illegal.

If the reporting isn't mandatory, then this sale was legal, wasn't it? Air Force wasn't mandated to report, so technically they didn't screw up. The store that sold the weapon ran a check and it came back okay. They didn't screw up. Or is the air Force mandated to report?

It is Air force policy to report.
Second that is what I keep saying needs to be changed.
We have to make it mandatory to put the information in the system.
That doesn't mean that anyone thinks this guy should have a gun,
Unfortunately a recent study showed that in 2012 only 70% of the records were entered.
His was one that was left out.

< Message edited by BamaD -- 11/8/2017 10:09:16 PM >


_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to Wayward5oul)
Profile   Post #: 242
RE: At "least" 27 People killed in Texas church - 11/9/2017 2:46:43 AM   
heavyblinker


Posts: 3623
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka
Yes her argument is that we should reinstate prohibition and revert to cars that can't go faster than the speed limit.


Stop pretending that guns serve the same purpose as cars and alcohol.
They don't.

Cars are a means of transportation.
Alcohol is an intoxicant and social pastime.

Guns are about destroying and killing, and they are sold to people for that purpose.

(in reply to tamaka)
Profile   Post #: 243
RE: At "least" 27 People killed in Texas church - 11/9/2017 2:59:17 AM   
heavyblinker


Posts: 3623
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Clearly several people have a problem understanding this.
The sale was legal, but the purchase was not.
It is like buying beer with a fake id the seller doesn't know it is illegal but the buyer does.


The argument is that the entire system makes it too easy for people to skirt the rules.
Really, the problem is that in gun-loving states like Texas people are too used to handing them out like candy, and you're placing a lot of responsibility in the hands of people working minimum wage at Walmart or some sporting goods store and who really don't give a fuck about their jobs.

Just saying that the rules need better enforcement or that people need to do a better job of it isn't going to work.
There are just too many people who need to 'do their job' but don't because the reality of what guns are isn't part of their world.

I guarantee that if you did the right thing and proposed a law where any licensed gun dealer or seller would face serious prison time if they sold a gun to someone like this (because let's face it, they ARE essentially an accomplice to mass murder-- so let's say life without parole), there would be a massive outcry by the gun rights activists.
Also, stores would stop carrying them or people would stop working there... nobody would want to risk it.

The guy posted a picture of a weapon that he wasn't supposed to have on Facebook, and nobody even blinked!

The real problem is that Americans have a serious derangement about guns that isn't so different from drug addiction or OCD.
It's this toxic mix of consumerism, paranoia and persecution that has become integral to American society, and when you mix that with easy access to killing tools, you get mass shootings and epidemic gun violence.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 244
RE: At "least" 27 People killed in Texas church - 11/9/2017 4:16:27 AM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker



The argument is that the entire system makes it too easy for people to skirt the rules.
Really, the problem is that in gun-loving states like Texas people are too used to handing them out like candy, and you're placing a lot of responsibility in the hands of people working minimum wage at Walmart or some sporting goods store and who really don't give a fuck about their jobs.

Just saying that the rules need better enforcement or that people need to do a better job of it isn't going to work.
There are just too many people who need to 'do their job' but don't because the reality of what guns are isn't part of their world.

I guarantee that if you did the right thing and proposed a law where any licensed gun dealer or seller would face serious prison time if they sold a gun to someone like this (because let's face it, they ARE essentially an accomplice to mass murder-- so let's say life without parole), there would be a massive outcry by the gun rights activists.
Also, stores would stop carrying them or people would stop working there... nobody would want to risk it.

The guy posted a picture of a weapon that he wasn't supposed to have on Facebook, and nobody even blinked!

The real problem is that Americans have a serious derangement about guns that isn't so different from drug addiction or OCD.
It's this toxic mix of consumerism, paranoia and persecution that has become integral to American society, and when you mix that with easy access to killing tools, you get mass shootings and epidemic gun violence.




How in the fuck can you hold a seller responsible if he/she follows procedure and gets a clean back ground check because some dick head did not put the information into the database? Or some local court does not hit the 'submit' key when entering a conviction for domestic violence or any of the things that would make it illegal for someone to buy a gun?

Christ, Bernie Sanders voted to support the fucking bill that made it impossible to sue a retailer for selling a gun to a prohibited individual because the back ground check came back clean, but by law the person should not have been able to buy a fucking gun!

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed to prevent gun retailers from being sued because the back ground check returned a proceed with sale result when in fact the person making the purchase was barred from buying a gun.

This bill had support from Republicans and Dems, which proves that they knew there was a problem with the back ground check system that allowed law enforcement and court agencies to NOT put the information on the data base because it is not mandatory.

And you want to hold them criminally responsible for selling a gun to someone when there was no way in hell they could know the person was not legally allowed to purchase the damn thing in the first place?

So, please, tell me how the fuck are they supposed to know?

You want to hold someone criminally responsible for shit like this, hold the fucking congressmen responsible, they know the system cant work because they made it that way.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to heavyblinker)
Profile   Post #: 245
RE: At "least" 27 People killed in Texas church - 11/9/2017 4:52:59 AM   
Wayward5oul


Posts: 3314
Joined: 11/9/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

You don't understand that laws that are this easily broken, and allow
"Mistakes" of this magnitude-- make the laws BULLSHIT.

Laws that are bullshit, create fucking mayhem and lawlessness.

Explain the "laws" to the families of the victims Sunday,and ask their opinion of your laws.
Make sure you explain that the laws are bullshit, because of all the problems.

Laws that are often not enforced or that can easily be broken are fucking meaningless.





It isn't legal and we need to make screwing up like this illegal.
I think they would be rightly enraged because the Air Force screwed up.
It isn't like anyone legalized what he did.
Your argument is like saying that if someone is driving drunk at 100 mph
the fact that he did it means we need a new law to make it illegal.

If the reporting isn't mandatory, then this sale was legal, wasn't it? Air Force wasn't mandated to report, so technically they didn't screw up. The store that sold the weapon ran a check and it came back okay. They didn't screw up. Or is the air Force mandated to report?

Clearly several people have a problem understanding this.
The sale was legal, but the purchase was not.
It is like buying beer with a fake id the seller doesn't know it is illegal but the buyer does.

I understand it perfectly. My point was that for everyone's blustering about "he should not have been sold the gun, gun laws don't need to be discussed right now, it's not the time", the sale was legal; nothing in our system stopped that.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 246
RE: At "least" 27 People killed in Texas church - 11/9/2017 5:20:23 AM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

You don't understand that laws that are this easily broken, and allow
"Mistakes" of this magnitude-- make the laws BULLSHIT.

Laws that are bullshit, create fucking mayhem and lawlessness.

Explain the "laws" to the families of the victims Sunday,and ask their opinion of your laws.
Make sure you explain that the laws are bullshit, because of all the problems.

Laws that are often not enforced or that can easily be broken are fucking meaningless.





It isn't legal and we need to make screwing up like this illegal.
I think they would be rightly enraged because the Air Force screwed up.
It isn't like anyone legalized what he did.
Your argument is like saying that if someone is driving drunk at 100 mph
the fact that he did it means we need a new law to make it illegal.

If the reporting isn't mandatory, then this sale was legal, wasn't it? Air Force wasn't mandated to report, so technically they didn't screw up. The store that sold the weapon ran a check and it came back okay. They didn't screw up. Or is the air Force mandated to report?

Clearly several people have a problem understanding this.
The sale was legal, but the purchase was not.
It is like buying beer with a fake id the seller doesn't know it is illegal but the buyer does.

I understand it perfectly. My point was that for everyone's blustering about "he should not have been sold the gun, gun laws don't need to be discussed right now, it's not the time", the sale was legal; nothing in our system stopped that.

Certain people are insisting that any kind of regulation on gun sales is impossible because that makes it easier to insist that whenever the leftist conspiracy talks about gun control they mean an outright ban on all firearms because nothing else could possibly work. It's what's called a strawman argument...

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to Wayward5oul)
Profile   Post #: 247
RE: At "least" 27 People killed in Texas church - 11/9/2017 6:01:46 AM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

I understand it perfectly. My point was that for everyone's blustering about "he should not have been sold the gun, gun laws don't need to be discussed right now, it's not the time", the sale was legal; nothing in our system stopped that.



The issue is that the sale should not have happened, the shooter was prohibited on 3 counts!

1) Dishonorable discharge from the armed forces
2) Convicted in a military court on domestic violence charges
3) Convicted of a crime requiring a sentence of more than one year in jail

The federal law on who can and cannot legally buy a gun is very explicit.

Of course, if some idiot had put that information into the system, this guy would not have been able to buy the guns in the first fucking place.

And the reason that nothing stopped the sale is the very issue I have been yelling about to my congressmen, senators, and everyone else, submitting information to the National Crime Database is not mandatory at all levels of court or law enforcement.

What makes it worse is that Congress members know it now, and knew it when they passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which prevents firearm retailers from being sued for selling a gun to a prohibited person because the back ground check came back clean.

"Hey gun dealers are getting their asses sued because the sold a gun to someone who was not allowed to buy a gun because the back ground check did not have the information that would have prevented the sale."
"we got to protect the business owners from this shit, lets pass a law that prevents them from being sued."
"hey I got an idea, lets add an amendment to the law that would make it mandatory for that information to be put on the database, might save some lives."
"fuck lives, we need to protect the business owners."

Our elected officials are not interested in saving lives, they are interested in headlines.

Some guy kills a bunch of people in a church, introduce a bill to ban a type of gun, even though it is found out that the guy should not have been able to legally buy the gun in the first place under the current laws, but the information was not available to the gun dealer.

Then when the bill fails, you can point to the other political party and make the claim that they do not want to do anything to stop the killings.

American politics 101, propose a law that will not solve the problem, ignore the facts, and blame the other party for it not working.

And we keep voting for these assholes.

Blame the NRA, the gun owners is the rally call, when the facts are that liberals and conservatives passed a law that clearly acknowledges there is a problem with the back ground check system to keep someone from being sued when the system does not work, but do absolutely nothing to fix the system.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to Wayward5oul)
Profile   Post #: 248
RE: At "least" 27 People killed in Texas church - 11/9/2017 7:42:11 AM   
JVoV


Posts: 3657
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline
It's a little too late for "shouldn't have happened", because it already fucking happened.

This background check database needs to be brought up to speed with modern technology and mandatory reporting from all agencies, with database staffers accessing arrest and court reports daily.

Possibly include a check of social media by the sellers.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 249
RE: At "least" 27 People killed in Texas church - 11/9/2017 8:43:32 AM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

It's a little too late for "shouldn't have happened", because it already fucking happened.

This background check database needs to be brought up to speed with modern technology and mandatory reporting from all agencies, with database staffers accessing arrest and court reports daily.

Possibly include a check of social media by the sellers.

The regulators can do that: just have a database with a blacklist that the vendors can check against before selling somebody their new toy. Unless they're coming in and buying guns with a roll of cash and no id* you could set their till up to automatically check plastic against the list, in case spending a minute checking a name against a list is too much effort for somebody.

*(Which never happens, as it's inconceivable that some spree killer might have ran amok with a firearm he bought from somebody who couldn't be bothered with the minimal legally required background checks. Perish the thought and heaven forfend!)

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to JVoV)
Profile   Post #: 250
RE: At "least" 27 People killed in Texas church - 11/9/2017 8:45:59 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

It's a little too late for "shouldn't have happened", because it already fucking happened.

This background check database needs to be brought up to speed with modern technology and mandatory reporting from all agencies, with database staffers accessing arrest and court reports daily.

Possibly include a check of social media by the sellers.

That means that if the seller doesn't like something you but on social
media they can stop the sale.


_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to JVoV)
Profile   Post #: 251
RE: At "least" 27 People killed in Texas church - 11/9/2017 8:47:44 AM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

It's a little too late for "shouldn't have happened", because it already fucking happened.

This background check database needs to be brought up to speed with modern technology and mandatory reporting from all agencies, with database staffers accessing arrest and court reports daily.

Possibly include a check of social media by the sellers.

That means that if the seller doesn't like something you but on social
media they can stop the sale.




_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 252
RE: At "least" 27 People killed in Texas church - 11/9/2017 10:01:32 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

It's a little too late for "shouldn't have happened", because it already fucking happened.

This background check database needs to be brought up to speed with modern technology and mandatory reporting from all agencies, with database staffers accessing arrest and court reports daily.

Possibly include a check of social media by the sellers.

That means that if the seller doesn't like something you but on social
media they can stop the sale.




If the seller checks social media it is what he thinks is a problem.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to WhoreMods)
Profile   Post #: 253
RE: At "least" 27 People killed in Texas church - 11/9/2017 10:19:52 AM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

It's a little too late for "shouldn't have happened", because it already fucking happened.

This background check database needs to be brought up to speed with modern technology and mandatory reporting from all agencies, with database staffers accessing arrest and court reports daily.

Possibly include a check of social media by the sellers.

That means that if the seller doesn't like something you but on social
media they can stop the sale.




If the seller checks social media it is what he thinks is a problem.

Nobody's talking about the seller using social media to check whether the purchaser has criminal or psychiatric issues.
Strawman.

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 254
RE: At "least" 27 People killed in Texas church - 11/9/2017 10:37:49 AM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

It's a little too late for "shouldn't have happened", because it already fucking happened.

This background check database needs to be brought up to speed with modern technology and mandatory reporting from all agencies, with database staffers accessing arrest and court reports daily.

Possibly include a check of social media by the sellers.


Uh, I have been saying that for years.

Of course, I still find it interesting that congress passed a law admitting there was a problem with the database used for back ground checks to keep gun retailers from being sued without actually fixing the problem.

Typical congressional response, ignore the real issue and protect someone for doing something right, knowing that because congress fucked up in the first place, but not actually doing anything from preventing it from happening again.

You know, kinda like the assault weapon ban bill introduced this week, goes after guns BUT does not have one thing to fix the reason this asshole could purchase a gun when he should not have been able to.

I decided yesterday to actually find out a few things about the court system reporting to the National Crime database after say a domestic violence conviction, or the entry of a protective order into the court records system, and for kicks took someone that is so adamantly in support of more gun laws to want the 2nd amendment repealed with me.

We saw a friend of mine that works for the clerk of superior court, criminal division and I asked just how this shooter's information got misplaced and not entered into the database.

She was extremely helpful, although admitted she did not know what the military uses for court data entry, but in the software used by state courts, it is simple data entry, fill in the blanks in a form on screen that is part of the software suite used.

Now, at the bottom of the form are two buttons, one for save, which saves it to the local and state computer network, after clicking save, there is a popup that asks if operator wants to transmit the data entered to the National Crime database.

that popup has two buttons, yes and no, but of course there is the little x in the top right corner to close the window.

The clerk of court watched the whole thing, and then volunteered a nice tidbit, that popup can be disabled when the software is installed.

Well my anti gun companion asked the question, "why would anyone disable that popup?"

The clerk replied, "sending the data to the National Crime database is not mandatory for states or local courts, by federal law. In Texas, state law makes it mandatory for state courts to put that information in, but not for say, a county magistrate that might issue a temporary protective order. So if the shooter had those convictions in Texas, it would have been sent to the database automatically."

Now the magistrate information is interesting, because a person can be hit with a temporary protective order by a magistrate at the time of arrest for domestic violence, and after that, a copy of the arrest report, the temporary protective order, and bail amount is sent to the DA's office so they can set the first court date.

So for at least sixty days, no one but the magistrate and the sheriff's department would have any idea about a domestic violence protective order, which means some guy can get arrested for domestic violence, have a temporary order placed on them, and then go out and buy a gun to shoot the woman he beat the crap out of who called the police.

I thought the friend that is anti gun was going to be sick. I had proved my argument in a way that proved to her that a) congress has known the problem exists, why it exists and the only thing they did was to pass a law to keep victims and survivors from suing gun retailers if they sold a gun to someone based on an erroneous back ground check result, and b) those wonderful congress members could have prevented a shit ton of killings starting years ago.

Well, she has not been converted to pro gun, that was not my intent, but she has learned that no one at the federal level gives a fuck about fixing the system. The only thing her esteemed liberal representatives will do is introduce some bill to ban some guns.

So, JVoV, it is not technology that is the problem with the database, the technology is nearly as old as the internet, and as old as the database system itself.

The problem is that the system is not mandatory, the problem is that the states themselves can opt out of submitting data by disabling part of the software, and then there is the problem that congress has known about this issue for god knows how long and has chosen not to do a goddamn thing about it.

And they wont do anything about it because it makes better headlines and better sound bites to use in elections for liberals to claim "we tried to ban those guns, but the evil GOP stopped us! Vote for me because I care and they dont!" or a GOP candidate can make the claim "The evil liberals tried to take your guns and I stopped them, vote for me they are trying to take away your right to own guns."

And during this 'debate' some guy gets pissed off at his inlaws cause they got mad because he beat the shit out of their little girl goes out and buys a gun and a shit ton of ammo and shoots up a church, or restaurant, or some other place and kills a lot of people, all because the back ground check did not show he was barred from purchasing a gun.

Why? Because those dick heads that get elected care less for the voters than they do about looking good for the voters.

Oh, in case you didnt know, that shooter on Sunday was after his mother in law, he actually sent her text message threats that morning, and the church he shot up was the one that she and her husband attended, they just happened to be running late that morning.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to JVoV)
Profile   Post #: 255
RE: At "least" 27 People killed in Texas church - 11/9/2017 10:50:48 AM   
heavyblinker


Posts: 3623
Status: offline
I know you have proven time and time again that you can't be rational when discussing guns (or many other topics, but especially guns), but you really need to calm down.

You can keep rabidly shouting about how the government needs to make it mandatory to enter info, how you're so angry, how much you love and need your precious precious killing devices and how much it sucks that people even bring up the idea that there shouldn't be so many out there... but as I said before, when you are forcing OTHER PEOPLE to be responsible for who gets to own guns as opposed to making people PROVE that they can responsibly own them, you are opening the door to things like this.

So the info wasn't entered by the Air Force-- why do you think that is?
Were they sticking up for the guy?
Were they bleeding heart liberals who didn't want to ruin his life?
Were they friends with the guy?
Were they stopped by some law?

My guess is that it just slipped someone's mind... they just plain old forgot to do it, or didn't realize it was their job at the time.
It has nothing to do with congress or people passing laws-- there were no laws stopping the Air Force from
It was simple human error, the result of a system that forces OTHER PEOPLE to prove that someone isn't responsible enough to own a gun instead of people proving THEMSELVES worthy of owning a gun.
Treating gun ownership as a RIGHT instead of a PRIVILEGE is the reason there are so many mass shootings, and why it will never change.

You keep insisting that the system would work if someone did this or did that, bringing up a lot of unrelated shit that doesn't apply in this case... but as I said before (and you ignored it), this system has been broken for almost 20 years now.
You keep harping on about the RWNJ narrative that says it's the bleeding heart liberals coddling the sociopaths in our midst.

It's not.
It's the Second Amendment people who are to blame here... and I think it's really ironic how their fear of a police state is used so often to justify gun ownership, and yet when someone says 'maybe gun ownership isn't a natural born right', then suddenly they're calling out for monitoring facebook feeds, trips to a psychiatrist, history of depression, etc.
Maybe we could also have agents follow them around to make sure they don't buy their guns from a gun show?

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 256
RE: At "least" 27 People killed in Texas church - 11/9/2017 12:06:05 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

It's a little too late for "shouldn't have happened", because it already fucking happened.

This background check database needs to be brought up to speed with modern technology and mandatory reporting from all agencies, with database staffers accessing arrest and court reports daily.

Possibly include a check of social media by the sellers.


Uh, I have been saying that for years.

Of course, I still find it interesting that congress passed a law admitting there was a problem with the database used for back ground checks to keep gun retailers from being sued without actually fixing the problem.

Typical congressional response, ignore the real issue and protect someone for doing something right, knowing that because congress fucked up in the first place, but not actually doing anything from preventing it from happening again.

You know, kinda like the assault weapon ban bill introduced this week, goes after guns BUT does not have one thing to fix the reason this asshole could purchase a gun when he should not have been able to.

I decided yesterday to actually find out a few things about the court system reporting to the National Crime database after say a domestic violence conviction, or the entry of a protective order into the court records system, and for kicks took someone that is so adamantly in support of more gun laws to want the 2nd amendment repealed with me.

We saw a friend of mine that works for the clerk of superior court, criminal division and I asked just how this shooter's information got misplaced and not entered into the database.

She was extremely helpful, although admitted she did not know what the military uses for court data entry, but in the software used by state courts, it is simple data entry, fill in the blanks in a form on screen that is part of the software suite used.

Now, at the bottom of the form are two buttons, one for save, which saves it to the local and state computer network, after clicking save, there is a popup that asks if operator wants to transmit the data entered to the National Crime database.

that popup has two buttons, yes and no, but of course there is the little x in the top right corner to close the window.

The clerk of court watched the whole thing, and then volunteered a nice tidbit, that popup can be disabled when the software is installed.

Well my anti gun companion asked the question, "why would anyone disable that popup?"

The clerk replied, "sending the data to the National Crime database is not mandatory for states or local courts, by federal law. In Texas, state law makes it mandatory for state courts to put that information in, but not for say, a county magistrate that might issue a temporary protective order. So if the shooter had those convictions in Texas, it would have been sent to the database automatically."

Now the magistrate information is interesting, because a person can be hit with a temporary protective order by a magistrate at the time of arrest for domestic violence, and after that, a copy of the arrest report, the temporary protective order, and bail amount is sent to the DA's office so they can set the first court date.

So for at least sixty days, no one but the magistrate and the sheriff's department would have any idea about a domestic violence protective order, which means some guy can get arrested for domestic violence, have a temporary order placed on them, and then go out and buy a gun to shoot the woman he beat the crap out of who called the police.

I thought the friend that is anti gun was going to be sick. I had proved my argument in a way that proved to her that a) congress has known the problem exists, why it exists and the only thing they did was to pass a law to keep victims and survivors from suing gun retailers if they sold a gun to someone based on an erroneous back ground check result, and b) those wonderful congress members could have prevented a shit ton of killings starting years ago.

Well, she has not been converted to pro gun, that was not my intent, but she has learned that no one at the federal level gives a fuck about fixing the system. The only thing her esteemed liberal representatives will do is introduce some bill to ban some guns.

So, JVoV, it is not technology that is the problem with the database, the technology is nearly as old as the internet, and as old as the database system itself.

The problem is that the system is not mandatory, the problem is that the states themselves can opt out of submitting data by disabling part of the software, and then there is the problem that congress has known about this issue for god knows how long and has chosen not to do a goddamn thing about it.

And they wont do anything about it because it makes better headlines and better sound bites to use in elections for liberals to claim "we tried to ban those guns, but the evil GOP stopped us! Vote for me because I care and they dont!" or a GOP candidate can make the claim "The evil liberals tried to take your guns and I stopped them, vote for me they are trying to take away your right to own guns."

And during this 'debate' some guy gets pissed off at his inlaws cause they got mad because he beat the shit out of their little girl goes out and buys a gun and a shit ton of ammo and shoots up a church, or restaurant, or some other place and kills a lot of people, all because the back ground check did not show he was barred from purchasing a gun.

Why? Because those dick heads that get elected care less for the voters than they do about looking good for the voters.

Oh, in case you didnt know, that shooter on Sunday was after his mother in law, he actually sent her text message threats that morning, and the church he shot up was the one that she and her husband attended, they just happened to be running late that morning.

Thank you for providing the proof that what you, I and some other pro gun
people on here have been saying the is problem is totally correct.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 257
RE: At "least" 27 People killed in Texas church - 11/9/2017 12:13:43 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

I know you have proven time and time again that you can't be rational when discussing guns (or many other topics, but especially guns), but you really need to calm down.

You can keep rabidly shouting about how the government needs to make it mandatory to enter info, how you're so angry, how much you love and need your precious precious killing devices and how much it sucks that people even bring up the idea that there shouldn't be so many out there... but as I said before, when you are forcing OTHER PEOPLE to be responsible for who gets to own guns as opposed to making people PROVE that they can responsibly own them, you are opening the door to things like this.

So the info wasn't entered by the Air Force-- why do you think that is?
Were they sticking up for the guy?
Were they bleeding heart liberals who didn't want to ruin his life?
Were they friends with the guy?
Were they stopped by some law?

My guess is that it just slipped someone's mind... they just plain old forgot to do it, or didn't realize it was their job at the time.
It has nothing to do with congress or people passing laws-- there were no laws stopping the Air Force from
It was simple human error, the result of a system that forces OTHER PEOPLE to prove that someone isn't responsible enough to own a gun instead of people proving THEMSELVES worthy of owning a gun.
Treating gun ownership as a RIGHT instead of a PRIVILEGE is the reason there are so many mass shootings, and why it will never change.

You keep insisting that the system would work if someone did this or did that, bringing up a lot of unrelated shit that doesn't apply in this case... but as I said before (and you ignored it), this system has been broken for almost 20 years now.
You keep harping on about the RWNJ narrative that says it's the bleeding heart liberals coddling the sociopaths in our midst.

It's not.
It's the Second Amendment people who are to blame here... and I think it's really ironic how their fear of a police state is used so often to justify gun ownership, and yet when someone says 'maybe gun ownership isn't a natural born right', then suddenly they're calling out for monitoring facebook feeds, trips to a psychiatrist, history of depression, etc.
Maybe we could also have agents follow them around to make sure they don't buy their guns from a gun show?



Alright, then please explain the logic of passing a fucking law that prevents gun retailers from being sued because they sold a gun to someone who legally could not buy a gun because the back ground check came back clean?

And explain the fact that the jackasses who wrote that fucking bill held hearings in which it was made clear that the participation in the National Crime database is only mandatory at the FEDERAL level and states can opt out sending information that would prevent someone from purchasing a gun, because it is not mandatory that the send the information, and knowing this, they did not do a fucking thing to fix the problem?????

And then, oh wise and intelligent person, explain why, since congress has done not one fucking thing to address the problem, instead liberals introduce bills to ban certain guns, and nothing to fix the problem in those either, sure they stop someone from buying an 'assault rifle' but that prohibited person can still buy a shot gun, a semi automatic pistol and a few dozen magazines, even when by law, they should not be able to, and go out and shoot up a school or church, all because the information that would prevent it is not required to be submitted EXCEPT at the federal level, it is the fault of those of use who actually own guns?

Forty six percent of those 'mass killings' involving a domestic dispute were committed by someone who either 1) had a protective order against them, or 2) had been convicted on a domestic violence crime, and after the damn conviction were able to go to a retailer and buy a gun with a clean back ground check because the fucking information had not been submitted to the National Crime database!

Lets go a bit further:

53% of mass shooters had some item in their back ground that would have prohibited from purchasing a gun, yet they were able to because the information had not been sent to the database used for back ground checks, a damn fucking good example is the Virginia Tech shooting, 32 dead and the shooter bought a gun legally because the information that would have prevented it was not in the database because the state was not required to put it there.

Virginia took it on itself to fix that, after 32 people died.

The Orlando shooter fell into a prohibited category, but bought guns anyway because the information that would have prevented it had not been submitted to the database.

But it is the fault of us who want to own guns, not congress, not the state legislatures who could have done something, but gun owners.

It is not the fault of the people elected to pass laws to prevent such crimes, but the gun owners.

Hell, it would be an easy thing to rewrite the software used to input court verdicts and protective orders so when you hit the save button it automatically sends it to the database, but again that would require someone to make it mandatory.

And do you want to know why I keep bringing this issue up?

I worked in law enforcement, I have seen first hand when some dick head went out and bought a gun after getting a protective order (which should not have been possible) because of the loopholes in the system and goes back to the wife and puts a few rounds in her.

Even cops know that the fucking national crime database check is a waste of time half of the times they use it, simply because if the person has an out of state ID, there is no guarantee that any information has been sent in to the database.

The only fucking national database that actually has information on everyone is the national transportation database, and of course that only covers tickets and suspended licenses, and of course DUI convictions.

So it boils down to the Federal government and states care a whole lot more if you are driving on a suspended license or without a license, than they do if you should not own a gun or not.

Oh, and they really want to make sure you cant sue someone who ran a back ground check before selling a gun to someone who isnt supposed to own one.

As for this guy, yeah, you're right, some airman probably didn't hit a button when inputting the court martial findings, because military regs require that information to be put in the database.

As for the rest of the mass shootings that have happened, you cannot make the same assumption, because it would be wrong.



_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to heavyblinker)
Profile   Post #: 258
RE: At "least" 27 People killed in Texas church - 11/9/2017 12:35:50 PM   
MasterDrakk


Posts: 321
Status: offline
two things. the 60 day on protection orders is not a uniform law. in my state it is immediate.

you have the issue that you cannot compel a state to do this by law.

thats just for starters.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 259
RE: At "least" 27 People killed in Texas church - 11/9/2017 12:51:24 PM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk

two things. the 60 day on protection orders is not a uniform law. in my state it is immediate.

you have the issue that you cannot compel a state to do this by law.

thats just for starters.

If State law overrules the constitution and bill of rights, what's all of this whining about the second amendment about, then?

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to MasterDrakk)
Profile   Post #: 260
Page:   <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: At "least" 27 People killed in Texas church Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109