Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
Dean Adam Smithee

Multiple deaths in South Florida high school shooting

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

MontyPython

You can get many things (even human beings) from the ‘black market’, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do anything to stop it from happening or taking the tools of destruction away from those who already have threatened themselves and others.

A psych eval will land someone in the hospital for three days and they they go home. Do they go home to a cache of weapons or no?

 

Just curious: Who suggested "we shouldn’t do anything to stop it from happening"?

 

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird

Just curious: Who suggested "we shouldn’t do anything to stop it from happening"?

 

B)

Stop it by confiscating the weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noclevermoniker

You can get many things (even human beings) from the ‘black market’, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do anything to stop it from happening or taking the tools of destruction away from those who already have threatened themselves and others.

A psych eval will land someone in the hospital for three days and they they go home. Do they go home to a cache of weapons or no?

What protection of civil liberties are you willing to guarantee that this treatment is only given to “those deserving”? How much corroborating evidence are you willing to wait to obtain to protect the civil liberties of the “not crazies”? If I call Obama an no good Kenyan SOB am I crazy or just blowing off some steam? Or does my “cache of weapons” get confiscated? None of this is simplistic. You have plenty of examples of our weaponized government attempting to take out people they don’t like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dutch13

:scratch: Last I checked, Jodie Foster is still among the living.

 

These kids were shot inside the school. A motor vehicle would not have gotten this far.

 

What is the problem with taking away guns from mentally unstable people? I'm not just talking about homicidal maniacs, but depressed, suicidal people (suicidal people sometimes enjoy taking out others along with themselves). A semi-automatic weapon can do a whole lot more damage then a deranged kid driving his GTO into a crowd.

 

Was he mentally unstable? Everybody wants the almighty Federal government to take action......yet when they are supposed to do their jobs, they fail (Oh, and the 2nd amendment does not allow the federal government to do it anyway). The Church shooter in Texas never should have had a gun, but the US Air Force failed to do their job. The FBI had reports on this kid, but they never followed up on him.

 

The states already have the legal right to take action. Any state that wants to put limitations on it's citizens can already do so.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL

Stop it by confiscating the weapons.

Let me start out by saying that I do not carry, I haven't had a gun with for years, all of mine are stored at my brother's (if he hasn't sold them ;) ) place and most of them have a family connection for me. All of that is by "choice."

 

I would say, "Absolutely. Let's take weapons away from the mentally ill."

 

There is only one thing stopping me from looking for solutions in the "confiscation" arena and that is leftists in general and the party you support, the Democrats, specifically.

 

NOTHING is ever enough for you guys.

 

Note: "You" in this context refers to the collective hive mind left as embodied in the Democrat party. Not YOU specifically.

 

You get one class of guns or away from one class of people because of the "danger" they pose and then you are all going to start asking, "Well what if: he borrows one from his neighbors? he buys a gun through a private sale? he forges papers and illegally buys from a dealer? he steals a gun from a family member? You literally will not stop until you get them all. You have proven time and again you are not for any choice that doesn't have to do with where you put your junk or killing unborn children. The rest, you want total control and a subservient electorate.

 

I don't trust the American left to keep any promise or live by any assurance or uphold any deal that is made. NONE.

 

To be fair, I don't trust the Republican party, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

Stop it by confiscating the weapons.

 

And then when that doesn't stop anything (because it can't)?

 

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oki

Yes, and terrorists flew airplanes into buildings, therefore guns are safer. There's much damage the human mind can conceive of to maim and kill others. That doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and pass out the pistols to the mentally deranged, because they could kill us in other ways.

 

Yes, everyone (over the age of 16) can drive a car, but we license drivers, and take away that privilege when the driver becomes incompetent, careless, or criminal.

 

Tell me(yet again) what is going to do a better job of preventing an attack, removing the means or removing the person/threat?

It's very very simple question. And it's at the heart of the debate.

Tell me that our own Government/Police/Politicians/'Leaders' hasn't used legislation which was 'intended' to keep the Guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them to take away guns from people who where never a threat and showed 0 signs of ever being one.

 

Would you like some examples? Of both?

The little tidbit your hero put in about how people who couldn't manage their own affairs where deemed a threat. I guess you would be okay with an elderly WWII vet who simply decided managing his finances had become to much so he decides to turn it over to his kids, perhaps one of his kids is a banker or investment advisor. Guess what? THE 'Law' stated he was a threat.

 

Oe maybe the County Clerk in Maryland who decided neighbors should know who has a gun and gave addresses(and I think even names) of registered gun owners to a local newspaper who then mapped them.

 

We Gun owners have tried it your way, more laws, more restrictions, and it hasn't worked has it? Mass shootings haven't stopped, criminals are still getting them and in the process it's the law abiding sane gun owners who have seen rights restricted, various guns outlawed just because of appearance. And as owners who have said NO MORE OF THIS CRAP labeled as the problem. NO L.B. the problem is people who believe more laws and more restrictions will solve anything. That you can simply take away the means and somehow magically bad things won't happen.

 

I pointed out using a car because it is just as effective and even EASIER TO CARRY OUT then using a gun. THE ONLY WAY YOU STOP THIS CRAP IS BY LOCKING THE PERSON UP. Tell me that taking someones guns will be %100 effective in stopping them from carrying out an attack, can you, will you?

If the point is saving innocent life why are you not okay with doing the one thing that will be %100 effective and will not affect any other person?

Don't you think it's fair to say if the case is strong enough to take private property without due process it should at least be strong enough to lock someone up? Or, is it as simple as you don't like guns, they are scary, and the less of them the better mentality?

 

Oki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oki

Yup. I see One_Poster has repeatedly ignored the point about vehicles, while another responded with "A semi-automatic weapon can do a whole lot more damage then a deranged kid driving his GTO into a crowd."

 

But that is, of course, nonsense. As you point out, what about Bastille Day in Nice? 86 dead and 458 injured, many severely.

 

A WHOLE lot more than this kid in Florida managed with his semi-auto weapon.

 

B)

 

You know, last night I watched an old Star Trek Movie(original cast etc..) as Mr Spock would say... the logical response is to remove the threat as it is the only way to ensure that nothing bad will happen, thinking that you can remove or neutralize a threat by taking away one means is... illogical and illustrates a failure and unwillingness to do what is necessary. As well fixating or believing an intimate object to be dangerous not because of the person using it but just because illustrates a level of immaturity and dangerous ignorance, it is also... illogical...

 

If these people truly cared about innocent blood being spilled they would understand that the only way to do so in a %100 effective manner is not by removing guns from the persons possession, or cars, or knives, OR ANYTHING FOR THAT MATTER, it's by removing them from the street and locking them up.

Like I said before, if they have a problem with it then I guess we should be able to make the same threats against there homes, there families, there places of work or even Obama and his family that this kid did against the school.

 

Imagine if someone in this forum said the exact same things that S.O.B. did towards another poster? Would that poster(even the ones who think (Gun Confiscation first) be happy with just the person firearms being taken? Or would they demand cops hunt them down and bring them in? Sure as hell I wouldn't blame them for wanting the person to be arrested. But, it's damn hypocritical of them to demand a persons arrest when they are threatened buy not when they do the same thing to someone else.

 

 

For what it's worth, I have criminal relatives(not really dangerous but just can't seem to pull their heads out of their asses), I also have at least one or two relatives who are in long term care facilities whose mental states would otherwise prevent them from legally owning a firearm. SO yeah, I can speak with some knowledge from all sides here.

 

If you get a sliver in your skin what will eventually happen? It will more than likely get infected and start to cause sickness and damage to your body, especially the surrounding area. Do you pull it out of our body as soon as you spot it? Or do you leave it in, let it fester cause an infection and then take antibiotics, use topical creams which affects both the good and bad bacteria's, all because you where unwilling to yank the damn thing out? Coarse not, you understand the consequences of leaving something in your skin/body which is dangerous.

 

The body is society, the bacteria's are people, the sliver is someone who is a dangerous criminal or insane.

 

 

Sorry for the long rant, but every fiber of my being wants to throw up over this sh$t. As a parent, a human being, and of coarse a gun owner.

 

 

Oki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird

What protection of civil liberties are you willing to guarantee that this treatment is only given to “those deserving”? How much corroborating evidence are you willing to wait to obtain to protect the civil liberties of the “not crazies”? If I call Obama an no good Kenyan SOB am I crazy or just blowing off some steam? Or does my “cache of weapons” get confiscated? None of this is simplistic. You have plenty of examples of our weaponized government attempting to take out people they don’t like.

Would we be protecting the civil liberties of the mentally ill by locking them away for an indeterminate time? That is the preferred method suggested by some here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

Would we be protecting the civil liberties of the mentally ill by locking them away for an indeterminate time? That is the preferred method suggested by some here.

 

Not by me.

 

I say quit coddling kids in school to the point where any disciplinary action convinces them they're "victims" who have been "mistreated" and want to get "revenge".

 

And quit pandering to equally-stupid parents who automatically take their kids' side after any disciplinary action.

 

And train teachers in the proper use of firearms and allow them to carry at school.

 

And so forth. There's plenty that can be done without locking anybody up.

 

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Severian

Yes, and terrorists flew airplanes into buildings, therefore guns are safer. There's much damage the human mind can conceive of to maim and kill others. That doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and pass out the pistols to the mentally deranged, because they could kill us in other ways.

 

Yes, everyone (over the age of 16) can drive a car, but we license drivers, and take away that privilege when the driver becomes incompetent, careless, or criminal.

Yes, and of course we NEVER have anyone without a license driving a car or truck now do we? Of course, schools are gun free zones, so how does this even happen? Derp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noclevermoniker

Would we be protecting the civil liberties of the mentally ill by locking them away for an indeterminate time? That is the preferred method suggested by some here.

And thus, you apparently recognize the conundrum. We are a nation where the individual is THE sovereign. Not the STATE, not “the common good”, which is a fancy name for the state. Our society and our laws dictate that we protec the sovereign individual to the maximum extent possible. One result of this was the ACLU demanding the release of lots of folks being held for “mental” reasons. Were some violent? Perhaps. Crazy? Most assuredly some were. But, as a free society we place high strong barriers against restricting the rights of persons we think “might do something.”

 

If it were simple, we’d be doing it already. Today, Dems are caterwauling about “inaction” on something they took no action on under King Barry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental

:scratch: Last I checked, Jodie Foster is still among the living.

 

These kids were shot inside the school. A motor vehicle would not have gotten this far.

 

What is the problem with taking away guns from mentally unstable people? I'm not just talking about homicidal maniacs, but depressed, suicidal people (suicidal people sometimes enjoy taking out others along with themselves). A semi-automatic weapon can do a whole lot more damage then a deranged kid driving his GTO into a crowd.

 

Define mentally unstable. What you consider a reasonable explanation of it will change over time. For instance we used to understand that homosexuality and transgender nonsense was deviant from the norm. (you know less than 10% of the people born demonstrate these activities), now they are considered NORMAL. So 8 years from now and obama 3 the second coming of christ is anointed president. He arbitrarily decides that he can't do anything but then in his sleep he inks a Presidential order declaring all gun owners as mentally insane because they WANT to own a gun! Thus he in one stroke of the pen has identified anyone seeking self protection unworthy of it and insane. What next?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental

Yes, and terrorists flew airplanes into buildings, therefore guns are safer. There's much damage the human mind can conceive of to maim and kill others. That doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and pass out the pistols to the mentally deranged, because they could kill us in other ways.

 

Yes, everyone (over the age of 16) can drive a car, but we license drivers, and take away that privilege when the driver becomes incompetent, careless, or criminal.

 

Oh boy, more broken logic. What is the difference between a PRIVELEGE and a RIGHT? Then you can answer your own question right there. You cannot take rights without DUE PROCESS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oki

Define mentally unstable. What you consider a reasonable explanation of it will change over time. For instance we used to understand that homosexuality and transgender nonsense was deviant from the norm. (you know less than 10% of the people born demonstrate these activities), now they are considered NORMAL. So 8 years from now and obama 3 the second coming of christ is anointed president. He arbitrarily decides that he can't do anything but then in his sleep he inks a Presidential order declaring all gun owners as mentally insane because they WANT to own a gun! Thus he in one stroke of the pen has identified anyone seeking self protection unworthy of it and insane. What next?

 

Exactly, and that's why I have very serious reservations of depriving someone of either their freedom or property without a very defined and strict set of rules. Defined enough that people who are a threat to themselves or others can be placed in a facility where they can harm no others and strict enough that abuses of the system are made as difficult and costly(as in you will get your ass in serious trouble) as possible.

IE has the person demonstrated or stated a desire to harm themselves or others. IE do others feel threatened by this person. IE have others requested or received restraining orders, protective orders, or forbidden entry. IE has there Police intervention in the past. IE are they currently under any type of psychiatric care. IE is there a history of drug or alcohol abuse. There are a few more but as an officer you know who the dangerous ones are.

 

As well you also know full well the depths that human mind can sink to when finding ways to harm others. That taking the guns might be a good start but it's just that a start, a determined person will either get them illegally or find other ways. The fact that all the talking bobbel heads from Hollywood, Washington, MSM didn't say much in the wake of the Paris truck attacks tells me they only give a damn about innocents when it involves firearms. Funny thing really, airplanes where not designed to kill people but yet they have been used to kill 100's of thousands if not millions. Yet, automobiles where not originally meant to kill anyone everything from drive buy shootings to going somewhere to commit a crime wouldn't be possible without them. But yet, the left wants to ban 'certain types of guns' without even knowing that functionality wise they are no different then ones they think are okay? Reminds me of my old Chevy Citation X11, in 1981 the Citation X11 was capable of at the least running with a same year Camaro if not besting it.

 

But yet guess which one was considered more dangerous and netted higher insurance rates?

http://www.automobile-catalog.com/performance/1981/207335/chevrolet_camaro_z28_5_0l_v-8_4-speed.html

 

http://www.automobile-catalog.com/performance/1981/23945/chevrolet_citation_x-11_hatchback_coupe.html

Why is this relevant? It's proof of how so called 'experts' will pick and choose what ever info they want to justify their claims but will refuse to look at hard stats even when they claim to look at hard stats.

 

 

 

Oki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental

Would we be protecting the civil liberties of the mentally ill by locking them away for an indeterminate time? That is the preferred method suggested by some here.

 

After demonstrating they are legally insane yes. You are protecting the CIVIL LIBERTIES of the People, not the individual. When we arrest someone we prove that they committed the crime. Thus we can after deliberation sentence them to a stay at one of our lovely hotels away from home for a determined amount of time.

 

However what you and other lefties are proposing is violating the civil rights of every individual, first by seizing firearms without a day in court and second presuming guilt instead of innocence.

 

But with your logic we are on our road to dictatorship. So keep that up. You can get there someday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oki

Would we be protecting the civil liberties of the mentally ill by locking them away for an indeterminate time? That is the preferred method suggested by some here.

 

 

But your a okay with taking away other rights and property without due process, correct? Ever stopped to think if the case is strong enough to do that then it should only be a first step in locking the person up? Shouldn't the case be strong enough that one can support the other?

Besides, how does taking away a crazy person guns(which again I do not have a problem with if done properly and for the right reasons) stop them from using a car, stealing firearms, making bombs, or any other method? HOW DOES IT STOP THEM?

 

Oki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental

Yes, and of course we NEVER have anyone without a license driving a car or truck now do we? Of course, schools are gun free zones, so how does this even happen? Derp.

 

The illegal alien that we chased drunk last saturday had no license and no citizenship, sadly he got away. I would have arrested him and detained him as a john doe until USCIS could figure out who he was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LongKnife

The illegal alien that we chased drunk last saturday had no license and no citizenship, sadly he got away. I would have arrested him and detained him as a john doe until USCIS could figure out who he was.

You shouldn't chase people drunk. You should sober up first. :whistling:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee

You shouldn't chase people drunk. You should sober up first. :whistling:

 

:clap: :lol2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental

You shouldn't chase people drunk. You should sober up first. :whistling:

 

I do my best police work after the 3rd Kahlua and Cream....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scotsman

I do my best police work after the 3rd Kahlua and Cream....

 

Had you more of a strawberry daiquiri type, sweetheart.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scotsman

But your first reaction is to confiscate guns from the person, which deserves nothing better than pooh-poohing. You confiscate his guns (the ones you know about anyway) on Monday, and Tuesday he gets more on the black market. What have you accomplished?

 

B)

 

Remember what happened to people who pooh-poohed things.

 

:D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

Remember what happened to people who pooh-poohed things.

 

:D

 

 

GREAT show.

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...