Remember the thread awhile back about schizophrenic gun owners?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

All these arguments should not matter. According to the article in the original post this man had been through a committment proceeding and held in psychiatric care. Ergo, according to the law he should not have been legally able to get a gun. The article does not tell us but it is likely that either

1) he was not put on the ineligible list due to an oversight of some kind or
2) he was put on that list but acquired firearms by other means.

This situation is created by those who cry foul when they feel medical privacy needs to be enforced to protect those getting procedures like an abortion

The liberal types have created this catch 22

uh, no, this situation can be caused by the people who believe that rights matter. Not just the right to speech or the bear arms, but the right to medical privacy.

Or it could simply be a failure in data records, as seemed to be the case with Cho in Virginia.

If privacy rights means a few aren't prevented from buying guns and causing trouble, well that's a price of freedom. Just as gun rights have costs too.

I did not say it was the only thing to effect the process

But it IS most certainly a part of it

And I do agree

All rights do have costs

But those costs should not be hugley different just because some do not like guns to be own by civilians

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

You mean this one where I specifically state I think it ought to be a review board made up of three psychiatrists; none of whom are involved with the day-to-day treatment of the patient?

When you think that when it comes to guns and guns alone it is fine to require a person to submit to testing BEFORE they have done anything wrong, but would be up in arms if that same standard was applied to any other right.... Yes, you are showing a double standard.

So . . . what I hear YOU saying is you think even if a board of psychiatrists have found a person to be mentally incompetent, you still believe they have a right to own a firearm. Is that correct?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You mean this one where I specifically state I think it ought to be a review board made up of three psychiatrists; none of whom are involved with the day-to-day treatment of the patient?

When you think that when it comes to guns and guns alone it is fine to require a person to submit to testing BEFORE they have done anything wrong, but would be up in arms if that same standard was applied to any other right.... Yes, you are showing a double standard.

So . . . what I hear YOU saying is you think even if a board of psychiatrists have found a person to be mentally incompetent, you still believe they have a right to own a firearm. Is that correct?

You been taking the online twisting the truth course again, havent you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You mean this one where I specifically state I think it ought to be a review board made up of three psychiatrists; none of whom are involved with the day-to-day treatment of the patient?

When you think that when it comes to guns and guns alone it is fine to require a person to submit to testing BEFORE they have done anything wrong, but would be up in arms if that same standard was applied to any other right.... Yes, you are showing a double standard.

So . . . what I hear YOU saying is you think even if a board of psychiatrists have found a person to be mentally incompetent, you still believe they have a right to own a firearm. Is that correct?

You been taking the online twisting the truth course again, havent you

Just trying to understand what he's getting at. I'm specifically NOT twisting his words. I'm asking for clarification on his position.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You mean this one where I specifically state I think it ought to be a review board made up of three psychiatrists; none of whom are involved with the day-to-day treatment of the patient?

When you think that when it comes to guns and guns alone it is fine to require a person to submit to testing BEFORE they have done anything wrong, but would be up in arms if that same standard was applied to any other right.... Yes, you are showing a double standard.

So . . . what I hear YOU saying is you think even if a board of psychiatrists have found a person to be mentally incompetent, you still believe they have a right to own a firearm. Is that correct?

You been taking the online twisting the truth course again, havent you

Just trying to understand what he's getting at. I'm specifically NOT twisting his words. I'm asking for clarification on his position.

Ok, but I find it very hard to see where you think he posted anything even close to angle you took

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

All these arguments should not matter. According to the article in the original post this man had been through a committment proceeding and held in psychiatric care. Ergo, according to the law he should not have been legally able to get a gun. The article does not tell us but it is likely that either

1) he was not put on the ineligible list due to an oversight of some kind or
2) he was put on that list but acquired firearms by other means.

This situation is created by those who cry foul when they feel medical privacy needs to be enforced to protect those getting procedures like an abortion

The liberal types have created this catch 22

I don't see where privacy has anything to do with it.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

All these arguments should not matter.

They matter. It is the difference between having a right, or having to EARN a right.

Quote

According to the article in the original post this man had been through a committment proceeding and held in psychiatric care. Ergo, according to the law he should not have been legally able to get a gun. The article does not tell us but it is likely that either

1) he was not put on the ineligible list due to an oversight of some kind or
2) he was put on that list but acquired firearms by other means.

OK, but that is a failure of the Govt, just like Cho the VT shooter. He was also not eligible to own a firearm. The Columbine shooters were also not legal to own the weapons they had either.

But the basic idea of you have rights till they are taken away VS. You have to earn your rights is a very valid discussion.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

So . . . what I hear YOU saying is you think even if a board of psychiatrists have found a person to be mentally incompetent, you still believe they have a right to own a firearm. Is that correct?

Nope..... Read the GCA of 1968.

What I hear YOU saying is that a person should have to submit to the board BEFORE they can own a gun. What I am saying a person is free to exercise their rights UNTIL proven they are not able to act of a sound mind.

You would not accept a board vote before a person was allowed to vote... You would not accept a board to see if a person is allowed to exercise the right to free speech.... Yet you advocate when it comes to gun rights to demand mental evaluations just to own one or to carry one.

Why the inconstancy?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

All these arguments should not matter.

They matter. It is the difference between having a right, or having to EARN a right.

Quote

According to the article in the original post this man had been through a committment proceeding and held in psychiatric care. Ergo, according to the law he should not have been legally able to get a gun. The article does not tell us but it is likely that either

1) he was not put on the ineligible list due to an oversight of some kind or
2) he was put on that list but acquired firearms by other means.

OK, but that is a failure of the Govt, just like Cho the VT shooter. He was also not eligible to own a firearm. The Columbine shooters were also not legal to own the weapons they had either.

But the basic idea of you have rights till they are taken away VS. You have to earn your rights is a very valid discussion.

I really do hope you never have an armed nutter as a next neighbor. It was fascinating watching him decend into a complete and utter meltdown after numerous visits by the police for his actions in the neighborhood. Eventually he attacked the wrong person.. and the police came and took him away after a standoff.. confiscated everything.. including the house... and a few months later the house was razed to the ground to remove the hazard to health and saftey of the neighborhood. Then again... perhaps that is what all of you who seem to feel this great need to protect these crazy fuckers "rights" need to make your personal lives complete.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I really do hope you never have an armed nutter as a next neighbor. It was fascinating watching him decend into a complete and utter meltdown after numerous visits by the police for his actions in the neighborhood. Eventually he attacked the wrong person.. and the police came and took him away after a standoff.. confiscated everything.. including the house... and a few months later the house was razed to the ground to remove the hazard to health and saftey of the neighborhood. Then again... perhaps that is what all of you who seem to feel this great need to protect these crazy fuckers "rights" need to make your personal lives complete.

No, I defend YOUR right to be armed so you will not be a helpless victim to this kind of nutter.

I hope you were well protected while that guy lived in your area..... I also want that same type of protection available to other honest citizens.

The lack of police action for so long should go to show that they are not there to protect you.

Just because some nutter scared you.... That does not give you the right to disarm someone else.

[quade 4]

Quote

What I hear YOU saying is that a person should have to submit to the board BEFORE they can own a gun.

Nope. Not even close. Again, referring to the post I made with my suggestions. I believe a person has the right to own a gun. However, if the person is thought to be incompetent, he'd go up against a board who would make the determination if he shouldn't have one. If at a later time somebody thought the person was competent, he'd go back in front of the board for another review before being allowed to have guns again.

You ask me,"Why the inconstancy?"
I have to ask you, "Why can't you just click the link and read what I actually wrote?"

Here it is again so you don't even have to scroll back;

Quote

Unfortunately, it can't be perfect because to a certain extent judging a person's sanity is subjective. Unlike alcohol or drugs, you can't do a simple chemical test and this person is and that person isn't sane "enough."

So let's say there's an altercation of some sort where one party (cops, family, healthcare professionals) thinks the guy is unstable. They go to a court and get a temporary separation between the guy and anything that might be a concern. During this temporary separation, a panel of mental health professionals, 3, run the person through some standardized tests. The guy passes and, while there was a period the guy was under suspicion, no harm, no foul and the guy can sue for false arrest and loss of wages, etc. The guy is found incompetent, actions are taken to more permanently separate him from the ability to do people harm.

Time goes by and somebody thinks he's cured, back to step one on the panel of people doing testing, but they have to be different people than the guy that thinks the subject is cured. In other words, neutral parties to his treatment.

Source in this thread;
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=4145053

Now, if you think that suggestion is still too restrictive, ok, I guess that's your opinion, Ron, but it's a hell of a long way from what you've said mine is.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

I really do hope you never have an armed nutter as a next neighbor. It was fascinating watching him decend into a complete and utter meltdown after numerous visits by the police for his actions in the neighborhood. Eventually he attacked the wrong person.. and the police came and took him away after a standoff.. confiscated everything.. including the house... and a few months later the house was razed to the ground to remove the hazard to health and saftey of the neighborhood. Then again... perhaps that is what all of you who seem to feel this great need to protect these crazy fuckers "rights" need to make your personal lives complete.

No, I defend YOUR right to be armed so you will not be a helpless victim to this kind of nutter.

I hope you were well protected while that guy lived in your area..... I also want that same type of protection available to other honest citizens.

The lack of police action for so long should go to show that they are not there to protect you.

Just because some nutter scared you.... That does not give you the right to disarm someone else.

It goes directly to PROVE that the provisions of the GCA are a hollow joke and many many more people will die because there is a group of people who are completely unwilling to err on the side of what is prudent if it might be seen as a threat in even the most miniscule way to gun ownership by any and all. It is an affront to responsible gun ownership by the vast majority of the rest of us when someone goes off the deep end and squat was done to prevent them from getting whatever they want to massacre as many as they feel they need to in retribution for thier seriously fucked up little lives.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

It goes directly to PROVE that the provisions of the GCA are a hollow joke

No, it goes to show that the Govt makes mistakes.

Quote

many many more people will die because there is a group of people who are completely unwilling to err on the side of what is prudent if it might be seen as a threat in even the most miniscule way to gun ownership by any and all.

"err on the side of what is prudent"....... Well, yes.... I am unwilling to remove a right defined in the Constitution without due process.

the thing is I am that way with ALL the rights.... you seem to be only OK with one right being limited... As you say "err on the side of prudent".

You would not accept a mental evaluation before someone had the right to free speech would you?

Quote

It is an affront to responsible gun ownership by the vast majority of the rest of us when someone goes off the deep end and squat was done to prevent them from getting whatever they want to massacre as many as they feel they need to in retribution for thier seriously fucked up little lives.

It is an affront when someone goes off the deep end. I also see it as an affront when well meaning people piss on the Constitution whenever they don't like it.

BTW, when this nutter was acting... well, nutty. Did you have a gun to protect yourself?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

It goes directly to PROVE that the provisions of the GCA are a hollow joke and many many more people will die because there is a group of people who are completely unwilling to err on the side of what is prudent if it might be seen as a threat in even the most miniscule way to gun ownership by any and all. It is an affront to responsible gun ownership by the vast majority of the rest of us when someone goes off the deep end and squat was done to prevent them from getting whatever they want to massacre as many as they feel they need to in retribution for thier seriously fucked up little lives.

Will you still approve of this scheme of "prudence" when someone points out to the authorities your posts here in this forum, where you are a self-professed gun owner, as well as someone who exhibits a lot of anger towards others, and those authorities come to take YOUR guns away from YOU? We can't be too careful, right? Better to err on the side of safety, than on the side of freedom?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

You ask me,"Why the inconstancy?"
I have to ask you, "Why can't you just click the link and read what I actually wrote?"

Would you propose the same standards for voting and free speech?

If not, then there is an inconstancy in your position.

Quote

So let's say there's an altercation of some sort where one party (cops, family, healthcare professionals) thinks the guy is unstable. They go to a court and get a temporary separation between the guy and anything that might be a concern.

Would this include his skydiving rig? Would it include his car? Would it include all the knives in his house? Baseball bats?

Quote

Now, if you think that suggestion is still too restrictive, ok, I guess that's your opinion, Ron, but it's a hell of a long way from what you've said mine is.

And you tried to claim mine was that anyone insane should be allowed to have a gun.

So, simple question.... Would you approve of this SAME process to remove any of the other Constitutional rights? Voting? Free Speech? Religion? Protection from Illegal search? Right to a fair trial? Right to confront witnesses? Trial by jury? Protection from Cruel and Unusual punishments? Removing rights without due process?

[quade 4]

Quote

So, simple question.... Would you approve of this SAME process to remove any of the other Constitutional rights? Voting? Free Speech? Religion? Protection from Illegal search? Right to a fair trial? Right to confront witnesses? Trial by jury? Protection from Cruel and Unusual punishments? Removing rights without due process?

I believe I did suggest a process.

As for its application to other Constitutional Rights, Ron, we as a society, do deny people's rights based on certain competencies, but mostly due to their ability to judge their actions appropriately when it comes to harming others first and them themselves. A person's rights, even if Constitutionally guaranteed, end at the tip of anyone else's nose and if that person lacks the judgement to know the difference, then society may step in.

So, can society take away a person's right to vote? Hell yes. A felon, for instance.

Right to Free Speech? Well, yes, there are, in fact, topics you aren't allowed to speak freely about. Classified information falls under that category.

Religion? Yes. If your religion required another law to be broken, like sacrificial killings, well, yes, society can restrict that.

The list goes on and on, but you don't appear to see it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Amazon 7]

Yes I did.. but why was it up to me to defend my life or the lives of those around me... to shoot the stupid fucker dead on the spot when he was menacing with a deadly weapon... and then have to suffer the consequences. Sorry but our wonderful system was unwilling to do anything about this idiot for a couple years... till he finally attacked someone and was not just threatening them.

Then again.. I really do believe there are a few nutters right here in SC that would be just a itchin to jump up and take care of it... cause he needed killin...

It seems we have a lot more of the same people with the same mindset.. and you guys are protecting them from any repercussions.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

It goes directly to PROVE that the provisions of the GCA are a hollow joke and many many more people will die because there is a group of people who are completely unwilling to err on the side of what is prudent if it might be seen as a threat in even the most miniscule way to gun ownership by any and all. It is an affront to responsible gun ownership by the vast majority of the rest of us when someone goes off the deep end and squat was done to prevent them from getting whatever they want to massacre as many as they feel they need to in retribution for thier seriously fucked up little lives.

Will you still approve of this scheme of "prudence" when someone points out to the authorities your posts here in this forum, where you are a self-professed gun owner, as well as someone who exhibits a lot of anger towards others, and those authorities come to take YOUR guns away from YOU? We can't be too careful, right? Better to err on the side of safety, than on the side of freedom?

More humorless posts from JR.. WOW... you just cain't hep yousef cain you...

I bet you cant not answer this one can you bubba

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

What I hear YOU saying is that a person should have to submit to the board BEFORE they can own a gun.

Nope. Not even close. Again, referring to the post I made with my suggestions.
...
So let's say there's an altercation of some sort where one party (cops, family, healthcare professionals) thinks the guy is unstable. They go to a court and get a temporary separation between the guy and anything that might be a concern. During this temporary separation, a panel of mental health professionals, 3, run the person through some standardized tests.

It's pretty clear here in your process that the guy loses his right without due process. Now you say it's just temporary, but we've already seen how routine restraining orders in divorce proceedings are not temporary at all. And it still appears that the burden of proof is going to fall on the guy to prove himself. Is this panel going to side on the side of individual rights or public safety? And are they going to rule on the spot - very unlikely. It will take time to schedule these evaluations, give them time to review, and then to present findings to a judge. Sounds like a 3-6 month process.

And the key detail is the one you didn't provide- what is the standard of proof to start the process...what does it take to suggest that someone is incompetent and should be subjected to this treatment?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

As for its application to other Constitutional Rights, Ron

Bob, the question is WOULD YOU SUPPORT REMOVING THOSE OTHER RIGHTS USING THE SAME PROCESS?

Quote

So, can society take away a person's right to vote? Hell yes. A felon, for instance.

Right to Free Speech? Well, yes, there are, in fact, topics you aren't allowed to speak freely about. Classified information falls under that category.

Religion? Yes. If your religion required another law to be broken, like sacrificial killings, well, yes, society can restrict that.

The list goes on and on, but you don't appear to see it.

And there is CURRENTLY a process to remove a persons right to keep and bear arms, Bob.

Quote

The list goes on and on, but you don't appear to see it.

I see it, I asked a simple question about using the SAME process to remove other rights.

So, again the simple question was: Would you approve of using the SAME PROCESS you want to remove a persons right to firearms for the other rights?

Again, SAME process, OTHER rights?

Well, Bob?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

And the key detail is the one you didn't provide- what is the standard of proof to start the process...what does it take to suggest that someone is incompetent and should be subjected to this treatment?

here's a quote from Quade "if the person is thought to be incompetent, he'd go up against a board who would make the determination if he shouldn't have one. If at a later time somebody thought the person was competent"

So to answer your question - apparently when "somebody" thinks it is enough to take away or return his property

hope that alleviates any concerns

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Yes I did.

So, why should YOU be allowed a weapon, but not others? Have YOU been through the psychological testing you advocate for others to own a weapon?

Quote

but why was it up to me to defend my life or the lives of those around me...

Because you are responsible and because the supreme court has ruled the police have no duty to protect you.

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278
South v. Maryland, 59 U.S.The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws

Also see DeShaney v. Winnebago County,

Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.

Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d 1, 1981) ((O)fficial police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection

Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5 (1975) The administrator of the estate of Ruth Bunnell who had been killed by her estranged husband brought a wrongful death action against the city whose police department refused to respond to her call for protection some 45 minutes before her death. Mrs. Bunnell had called the police to report that Mack Bunnell had called saying he was on his way to her home to kill her. She was told to call back when Mack Bunnell arrived.

Davidson v. City of Westminister, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252 (1982) (A husband and wife who were assaulted in a laundromat while the assailant was under surveillance by officers

There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones." That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that "the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."

So, why do YOU have to be ready to protect yourself and your loved ones?

1. Because you are a responsible person.
2. Because the Police have no duty yo protect you individually.
3. Because the Police cannot be everywhere.
4. Because the Supreme Court has said , "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones."

Quote

Then again.. I really do believe there are a few nutters right here in SC that would be just a itchin to jump up and take care of it... cause he needed killin...

Yet, only one here was ready to actually do it... YOU. So who is the nutter, the person YOU THINK would do it, or the person who YOU KNOW was READY to do it?

Quote

It seems we have a lot more of the same people with the same mindset.. and you guys are protecting them from any repercussions.

Seems you are fine owning weapons without YOU going through the process you seem to want OTHERS to go through. That is the very definition of hypocrisy.

So, have you been through the mental evaluations you claim everyone should go through?

For one, I am GLAD you were armed and ready to protect yourself.... It is shame you only want that same level of protection for you and you alone.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Yes I did.

So, why should YOU be allowed a weapon, but not others? Have YOU been through the psychological testing you advocate for others to own a weapon?

Quote

but why was it up to me to defend my life or the lives of those around me...

Because you are responsible and because the supreme court has ruled the police have no duty to protect you.

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278
South v. Maryland, 59 U.S.The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws

Also see DeShaney v. Winnebago County,

Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.

Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d 1, 1981) ((O)fficial police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection

Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5 (1975) The administrator of the estate of Ruth Bunnell who had been killed by her estranged husband brought a wrongful death action against the city whose police department refused to respond to her call for protection some 45 minutes before her death. Mrs. Bunnell had called the police to report that Mack Bunnell had called saying he was on his way to her home to kill her. She was told to call back when Mack Bunnell arrived.

Davidson v. City of Westminister, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252 (1982) (A husband and wife who were assaulted in a laundromat while the assailant was under surveillance by officers

There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones." That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that "the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."

So, why do YOU have to be ready to protect yourself and your loved ones?

1. Because you are a responsible person.
2. Because the Police have no duty yo protect you individually.
3. Because the Police cannot be everywhere.
4. Because the Supreme Court has said , "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones."

Quote

Then again.. I really do believe there are a few nutters right here in SC that would be just a itchin to jump up and take care of it... cause he needed killin...

Yet, only one here was ready to actually do it... YOU. So who is the nutter, the person YOU THINK would do it, or the person who YOU KNOW was READY to do it?

Quote

It seems we have a lot more of the same people with the same mindset.. and you guys are protecting them from any repercussions.

Seems you are fine owning weapons without YOU going through the process you seem to want OTHERS to go through. That is the very definition of hypocrisy.

So, have you been through the mental evaluations you claim everyone should go through?

For one, I am GLAD you were armed and ready to protect yourself.... It is shame you only want that same level of protection for you and you alone.

I don't know why I even bothered to engage in this assinine arguement.. hey... go shoot whoever the fuck you want bubba... it seems you guys dig that sort of action.. I do not.

Have at it.

Just more great RED STATE Christian Family Values on display

Thanks but no thanks.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Seems you are fine owning weapons without YOU going through the process you seem to want OTHERS to go through. That is the very definition of hypocrisy.

Yes
And is ti also the mind set of a liberal

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Seems you are fine owning weapons without YOU going through the process you seem to want OTHERS to go through. That is the very definition of hypocrisy.

Yes
And is ti also the mind set of a liberal

And the mind set of the Conservative Christian Family Values of murdering... oh sorry.... defending your property... is right there for anyone else to see,

Hey... Go shoot whoever you want to to maintain those fine upstanding values

I am amazed so many of you are willing to set yourself up as judge and jury and executioner when it comes to other peoples lives. Fine Christian Values indeed.