warpedskydiver 0 #76 April 7, 2009 Whatever, just admit you are against the right of the people to keep and bear arms and it will all be settled. I bet you long for the day that you can restrict any right you disagree with, unless it restricts your own rights of course. You are willing to throw away our freedom for your own sense of safety. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #77 April 7, 2009 Quote Quote Quote What exactly in his past should have disqualified him from gun ownership? His mental stability. After so many issues, somewhere along the line he should have been mentally disqualified. Or do you disagree? Then that's not a problem with gun laws. It's a problem with prosecutors not taking appropriate action. Do you want something like a three-strikes law, whereby three non-felony violent encounters with police would suffice to disqualify someone from gun ownership? I might go for something like that, depending upon what kind of misdemeanors are included. I don't want people with a history of violence to have guns But I don't want non-violent petty crimes to be a disqualifier either. Someone who shoplifted when he was young and dumb ought to still be able to go duck hunting later in life. How come I have to come up with these ideas? You anti-gun folks are supposed to be doing this. But all I hear from them are whining and meaningless generalities. wash out your mouth with soap John Rich. Non felonies and you want to use that as a measure to restrict a right? Two kids in school can get a couple misdemeanors just getting into a fist fight. I was in 82 fights in the eight grade alone, it was a pretty messed up school and if you could not defend yourself you would be beaten into a pulp. (Busing was supposed to be the best thing that was ever devised to ensure all kids were exposed to other cultures and people of other races, no matter what the cost. that was another liberal failure) Would that be enough to restrict my rights? I know you probably said so out of being tired and frustrated by misdemeanors don't mean squat. People get misdemeanors now for what was commonplace to get a warning for just two decades ago. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #78 April 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteWhat exactly in his past should have disqualified him from gun ownership? His mental stability. After so many issues, somewhere along the line he should have been mentally disqualified. I tend to agree with you, Paul, but I can't quite figure out at which point he should have been "mentally disqualified." There was the tray-throwing, which got him discharged from the military but didn't seem to include a conviction. And then there was an alleged assault, which also apparently had no conviction, but it did lead to a protection from abuse order, which he then violated. I lean towards thinking that the point where he violated the protection from abuse order being the point where he should have had his rights to firearm possession taken away. Is that what you're thinking? Or are you thinking that he should have had them taken away before that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krip 2 #79 April 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhat exactly in his past should have disqualified him from gun ownership? His mental stability. After so many issues, somewhere along the line he should have been mentally disqualified. I tend to agree with you, Paul, but I can't quite figure out at which point he should have been "mentally disqualified." There was the tray-throwing, which got him discharged from the military but didn't seem to include a conviction. And then there was an alleged assault, which also apparently had no conviction, but it did lead to a protection from abuse order, which he then violated. I lean towards thinking that the point where he violated the protection from abuse order being the point where he should have had his rights to firearm possession taken away. Is that what you're thinking? Or are you thinking that he should have had them taken away before that? The military took the easy way out with the DD without the redflag that he was violent/nuts. The local courts failed when he beat on his girlfriend and didn't take his toys away. Wasn't there a guy who used to post on DZ.com who got into a domestic violence issue with his exotic dancing girlfriend maybe philly kiev who lost his guns for at least month's. The nutters family failed the guy and the dead cops by ignoring the warning signs. the nutter was out of control for a long time and his mommy finally calls the cops because his dog pissed in the house. Nice job Marines, Local court system, Mom. You all screwed up there are three cops dead and we have to respond to this mess in a reactive way rather than proactive/ Our mental health system is a faliure and will continue to be so until people stop taking the easy way out and get the nuttters some help.One Jump Wonder Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #80 April 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAre you willing to have those same restrictions placed on your right to speak, or vote, or any other right? The minute you can show me how I personally can directly kill people with my words . . . sure. Go for it. Give it a shot. Show me. Show me how I can lay in wait for a cop to come to my door and kill him by talking. You're grasping at straws. Ok, so you have no problem with restricting rights that YOU don't agree with...gotcha. I'll make sure to remind you later. No. I'm fine restricting any rights you can find that can be used by people laying in wait to kill cops. Again, go for it. Show me one. Nice strawman you have there, Paul...care to define the requirements a little MORE narrowly so that you make sure you win the argument?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #81 April 7, 2009 QuoteWhat do you want in return? I don't know, but negotiations are composed of give and take. You obviously forgot that only the gun-owners are required to give things up, Tom...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #82 April 7, 2009 Quote I lean towards thinking that the point where he violated the protection from abuse order being the point where he should have had his rights to firearm possession taken away. Is that what you're thinking? Or are you thinking that he should have had them taken away before that? The Emerson case was based on the problem that with the mere filing of a restraining order, you can have someone's guns taken from them, without any semblance of due process. If he wasn't convicted of a felony or declared unfit by a shrink, there had to be a significant event to warrant predeclaring him too dangerous to enjoy his rights. None of the events individually appear to do so. In while, it's still not clear, but it's also worth noting that we don't have a government dad that says - hmm, 5 weird events, maybe you have a problem. The closest to that is the DMV which (in CA and some other states) decides that X points over Y months is cause for revoking a license, even if each event is minor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #83 April 7, 2009 Sounds like this is a part of the system that didn't work too well: Quote911 worker didn't warn Pittsburgh police of guns PITTSBURGH – The mother of a man charged with killing three Pittsburgh police officers told a 911 dispatcher he had weapons, but the dispatcher didn't relay that information to officers, the official in charge of county dispatchers says. The dispatcher should have asked more questions about the weapons, but didn't, and certainly should have told officers so they could take necessary precautions, Allegheny County Chief of Emergency Services Robert Full told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. "There is no excuse. It could have been handled better, without a doubt," Full said in Tuesday's editions. . . . http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090407/ap_on_re_us/pittsburgh_shooting Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
