|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Feb 25, 2018 21:44:36 GMT
I was wondering why, if the shooter had made threats on social media, no one seemed to think that was an indicator. Seems to me that the Behavioral Analysis Unit should have been involved. This was a total screw-up on every level. The Sheriff's Department had been called on him at least a dozen times and did nothing. Good grief, how many red flags do they need? |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 25, 2018 21:46:28 GMT
Wow. ok yeah the FBI should have done something. But that does kind of bolster my point that a national registry would be a good thing. Maybe, if the law was written to guarantee that registration would not lead to confiscation. I've even said on another board that I could support raising the minimum age on buying semi-automatic weapons to 25. How would registration lead to confiscation? I mean I would expect that if you were found to have 20 guns and be the head of a large hate group that might be grounds for confiscation, but I can't see a scenario where just registration would lead to that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2018 21:46:49 GMT
 I would prefer if you followed your own advice, Gadreel. I thought you had decided you were not going to waste your time with me, or is this yet another lie from you? I'll put you on ignore so I'm no longer distracted by your insults... ...and your false prophecy, delusional beliefs, attempts to confuse people about spiritual matters, your false claims to understand scripture and your palpable squirming when someone pins you to claim your true beliefs. May the Lord continue to rebuke you. Amen. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 25, 2018 21:47:41 GMT
This was a total screw-up on every level. The Sheriff's Department had been called on him at least a dozen times and did nothing. Good grief, how many red flags do they need? Yeah I gotta admit I am beginning to go Storms way and say guns are not the issue, it's the law enforcement that needs work. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 25, 2018 21:48:48 GMT
Here, once again, is your sarcastic remark to gadreel: "Thank you for your opinion on the validity of rules you aren't asked to follow." So, OF COURSE, you are saying that people shouldn't criticize the validity of rules if they're not subject to them. There is no other plausible understanding of that comment. And its monumental stupidity is now so evident even to you that you're trying to deny that you ever said it. Except, no, I am not saying people shouldn't criticize the validity of rules if they're not subject to them. I am simply scoffing at it. Your imagined distinction changes nothing. Your words STILL should be used by leaders of countries that persecute Christians to respond to criticism. According to you now, they are entitled to scoff at those critics. (Your poverty of thought just keeps getting more and more evident.)
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 25, 2018 21:53:19 GMT
Except, no, I am not saying people shouldn't criticize the validity of rules if they're not subject to them. I am simply scoffing at it. Your imagined distinction changes nothing. Your words STILL should be used by leaders of countries that persecute Christians to respond to criticism. According to you now, they are entitled to scoff at those critics. (Your poverty of thought just keeps getting more and more evident.)
And now he put me on ignore for calling out his bullshit, I recommend you attempt the same thing.  |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 25, 2018 21:54:03 GMT
He's not that far off. It's borderline treason to subvert the Constitution. ... and IMHO herein lies the basic problem for America in its anachronistic Constitutional debate I have already joked that I am going to start a musket factory and make a fortune selling them to authentic Americans, butt seriously what is going on in your country is absolute madness and you sadly can't even see it.  To me it looks like an overarching patriarchy defending the use of big boy's toys and the defence of perceived masculinity and inappropriate nationalism over common sense and the actual real safety of the population. Craziness in ALL ways. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 25, 2018 21:54:21 GMT
Your religious affiliation doesn't determine your desire to own a gun. The want to be able to kill someone does. Someone once asked me, "What if an armed robber breaks into your house? Wouldn't you want a gun to protect you?" My answer was, no. Because I don't want to kill an armed robber that breaks into my house. I don't want to kill anyone for any reason. And that is one of the two determining factors that go into whether a person will own a gun. The two are: 1. The willingness to kill in self-defense (The want to be able to kill someone). 2. Fear. I give myself 80/20 odds against a gun armed intruder in my own house if I am unarmed  |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 25, 2018 21:57:47 GMT
I thought you had decided you were not going to waste your time with me, or is this yet another lie from you? I'll put you on ignore so I'm no longer distracted by your insults... ...and your false prophecy, delusional beliefs, attempts to confuse people about spiritual matters, your false claims to understand scripture and your palpable squirming when someone pins you to claim your true beliefs. May the Lord continue to rebuke you. Amen. LOLOLOLOLOLOL Sorry, I KNOW I shouldn't laugh butt are you serious? Neena neena neena " MY version is better than YOUR version of religion and MY God is gonna get you and make you pay for daring to disagree with me!" Amen |
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Feb 25, 2018 21:57:48 GMT
Maybe, if the law was written to guarantee that registration would not lead to confiscation. I've even said on another board that I could support raising the minimum age on buying semi-automatic weapons to 25. How would registration lead to confiscation? I mean I would expect that if you were found to have 20 guns and be the head of a large hate group that might be grounds for confiscation, but I can't see a scenario where just registration would lead to that. You're asking how something would happen that has already happened. California required registration of several types of firearms in the 90s. Then the following law was put in place with respect to SKS rifles after the state knew who owned them: 30720. (a) Any person, firm, company, or corporation that is in possession of an SKS rifle shall do one of the following on or before January 1, 2000: (1) Relinquish the SKS rifle to the Department of Justice pursuant to subdivision (h) of former Section 12281. (2) Relinquish the SKS rifle to a law enforcement agency pursuant to former Section 12288, as added by Section 3 of Chapter 19 of the Statutes of 1989. (3) Dispose of the SKS rifle as permitted by former Section 12285, as it read in Section 20 of Chapter 23 of the Statutes of 1994. (b) Any person who has obtained title to an SKS rifle by bequest or intestate succession shall be required to comply with paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a) unless that person otherwise complies with paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of former Section 12285, as it read in Section 20 of Chapter 23 of the Statutes of 1994, or as subsequently amended. (c) Any SKS rifle relinquished to the department pursuant to this section shall be in a manner prescribed by the department. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 25, 2018 22:00:39 GMT
How would registration lead to confiscation? I mean I would expect that if you were found to have 20 guns and be the head of a large hate group that might be grounds for confiscation, but I can't see a scenario where just registration would lead to that. You're asking how something would happen that has already happened. California required registration of several types of firearms in the 90s. Then the following law was put in place with respect to SKS rifles after the state knew who owned them: 30720. (a) Any person, firm, company, or corporation that is in possession of an SKS rifle shall do one of the following on or before January 1, 2000: (1) Relinquish the SKS rifle to the Department of Justice pursuant to subdivision (h) of former Section 12281. (2) Relinquish the SKS rifle to a law enforcement agency pursuant to former Section 12288, as added by Section 3 of Chapter 19 of the Statutes of 1989. (3) Dispose of the SKS rifle as permitted by former Section 12285, as it read in Section 20 of Chapter 23 of the Statutes of 1994. (b) Any person who has obtained title to an SKS rifle by bequest or intestate succession shall be required to comply with paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a) unless that person otherwise complies with paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of former Section 12285, as it read in Section 20 of Chapter 23 of the Statutes of 1994, or as subsequently amended. (c) Any SKS rifle relinquished to the department pursuant to this section shall be in a manner prescribed by the department. I think that is a bit tenuous, I think I would need to know more, surely they were going to ban the guns anyway right? The registration was not used to confiscate them. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 25, 2018 22:01:06 GMT
How would registration lead to confiscation? I mean I would expect that if you were found to have 20 guns and be the head of a large hate group that might be grounds for confiscation, but I can't see a scenario where just registration would lead to that. You're asking how something would happen that has already happened. California required registration of several types of firearms in the 90s. Then the following law was put in place with respect to SKS rifles after the state knew who owned them: 30720. (a) Any person, firm, company, or corporation that is in possession of an SKS rifle shall do one of the following on or before January 1, 2000: (1) Relinquish the SKS rifle to the Department of Justice pursuant to subdivision (h) of former Section 12281. (2) Relinquish the SKS rifle to a law enforcement agency pursuant to former Section 12288, as added by Section 3 of Chapter 19 of the Statutes of 1989. (3) Dispose of the SKS rifle as permitted by former Section 12285, as it read in Section 20 of Chapter 23 of the Statutes of 1994. (b) Any person who has obtained title to an SKS rifle by bequest or intestate succession shall be required to comply with paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a) unless that person otherwise complies with paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of former Section 12285, as it read in Section 20 of Chapter 23 of the Statutes of 1994, or as subsequently amended. (c) Any SKS rifle relinquished to the department pursuant to this section shall be in a manner prescribed by the department. WE paid people BIG BUCKs and it didn't seem so bad! In fact many went...yay...  |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 25, 2018 22:01:31 GMT
I'll put you on ignore so I'm no longer distracted by your insults... ...and your false prophecy, delusional beliefs, attempts to confuse people about spiritual matters, your false claims to understand scripture and your palpable squirming when someone pins you to claim your true beliefs. May the Lord continue to rebuke you. Amen. LOLOLOLOLOLOL Sorry, I KNOW I shouldn't laugh butt are you serious? Neena neena neena " MY version is better than YOUR version of religion and MY God is gonna get you and make you pay for daring to disagree with me!" Amen Such self serving idiocy. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Feb 25, 2018 22:01:46 GMT
Good grief, how many red flags do they need? Yeah I gotta admit I am beginning to go Storms way and say guns are not the issue, it's the law enforcement that needs work. Law enforcement does need work given this situation. But the bigger picture, and I'm just 'what-if-ing', is that mentally unstable people don't need a gun to do violence. What if everyone who bought kitchen knives had to register them? This shooter took out seventeen people; there are serial killers, running under the radar, that have had higher body counts. So many things can be used as a weapon. Rope, rat poison, knives, vehicles; the list is endless. The mass shootings get more media attention. But the real issue is, humans are going to hurt other humans in any society; how can we legislate a completely safe society and still be free? How to deal with violence is part of the human condition. It has been ongoing as long as there have been humans. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2018 22:02:36 GMT
Except, no, I am not saying people shouldn't criticize the validity of rules if they're not subject to them. I am simply scoffing at it. Your imagined distinction changes nothing. Your words STILL should be used by leaders of countries that persecute Christians to respond to criticism. According to you now, they are entitled to scoff at those critics. (Your poverty of thought just keeps getting more and more evident.)
Of course they have the right to scoff at my criticisms. What kind of idiot would suggest otherwise? Or was this just another thinly-veiled strawman? |
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Feb 25, 2018 22:03:39 GMT
You're asking how something would happen that has already happened. California required registration of several types of firearms in the 90s. Then the following law was put in place with respect to SKS rifles after the state knew who owned them: 30720. (a) Any person, firm, company, or corporation that is in possession of an SKS rifle shall do one of the following on or before January 1, 2000: (1) Relinquish the SKS rifle to the Department of Justice pursuant to subdivision (h) of former Section 12281. (2) Relinquish the SKS rifle to a law enforcement agency pursuant to former Section 12288, as added by Section 3 of Chapter 19 of the Statutes of 1989. (3) Dispose of the SKS rifle as permitted by former Section 12285, as it read in Section 20 of Chapter 23 of the Statutes of 1994. (b) Any person who has obtained title to an SKS rifle by bequest or intestate succession shall be required to comply with paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a) unless that person otherwise complies with paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of former Section 12285, as it read in Section 20 of Chapter 23 of the Statutes of 1994, or as subsequently amended. (c) Any SKS rifle relinquished to the department pursuant to this section shall be in a manner prescribed by the department. I think that is a bit tenuous, I think I would need to know more, surely they were going to ban the guns anyway right? The registration was not used to confiscate them. If they were going to ban them anyway then there was no need for registration. Whether that was their original intent or not, registration definitely made it easier. |
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Feb 25, 2018 22:05:20 GMT
You're asking how something would happen that has already happened. California required registration of several types of firearms in the 90s. Then the following law was put in place with respect to SKS rifles after the state knew who owned them: 30720. (a) Any person, firm, company, or corporation that is in possession of an SKS rifle shall do one of the following on or before January 1, 2000: (1) Relinquish the SKS rifle to the Department of Justice pursuant to subdivision (h) of former Section 12281. (2) Relinquish the SKS rifle to a law enforcement agency pursuant to former Section 12288, as added by Section 3 of Chapter 19 of the Statutes of 1989. (3) Dispose of the SKS rifle as permitted by former Section 12285, as it read in Section 20 of Chapter 23 of the Statutes of 1994. (b) Any person who has obtained title to an SKS rifle by bequest or intestate succession shall be required to comply with paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a) unless that person otherwise complies with paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of former Section 12285, as it read in Section 20 of Chapter 23 of the Statutes of 1994, or as subsequently amended. (c) Any SKS rifle relinquished to the department pursuant to this section shall be in a manner prescribed by the department. WE paid people BIG BUCKs and it didn't seem so bad! In fact many went...yay... You mean that law where pump-action shotguns were among the banned weapons so people just replaced them with lever-action models. You're an imbecile. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2018 22:05:29 GMT
He's not that far off. It's borderline treason to subvert the Constitution. ... and IMHO herein lies the basic problem for America in its anachronistic Constitutional debate I have already joked that I am going to start a musket factory and make a fortune selling them to authentic Americans, butt seriously what is going on in your country is absolute madness and you sadly can't even see it. To me it looks like an overarching patriarchy defending the use of big boy's toys and the defence of perceived masculinity and inappropriate nationalism over common sense and the actual real safety of the population. Craziness in ALL ways. Goz, we didn't have these problems 30 years ago and our gun laws were not any different in any significant way. And there is nothing inappropriate about nationalism. People who claim otherwise tend to be envious of strong countries. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 25, 2018 22:06:28 GMT
I think that is a bit tenuous, I think I would need to know more, surely they were going to ban the guns anyway right? The registration was not used to confiscate them. If they were going to ban them anyway then there was no need for registration. Whether that was their original intent or not, registration definitely made it easier. Sure, but that is a good thing. The registration enabled them to enact a law, it was not instrumental in the confiscation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2018 22:07:36 GMT
I'll put you on ignore so I'm no longer distracted by your insults... ...and your false prophecy, delusional beliefs, attempts to confuse people about spiritual matters, your false claims to understand scripture and your palpable squirming when someone pins you to claim your true beliefs. May the Lord continue to rebuke you. Amen. LOLOLOLOLOLOL Sorry, I KNOW I shouldn't laugh butt are you serious? Neena neena neena " MY version is better than YOUR version of religion and MY God is gonna get you and make you pay for daring to disagree with me!" Amen You wouldn't understand, Goz. It's a sort of a Bible joke. Then again, I suppose that means I shouldn't have applied it to Gadreel since he probably didn't get the reference. |
|
