OT not pro gun, but very smart about how laws are an invasion

In your case the decision is simple. You're so full of anger and hate, attack anyone and everyone here, make threats. No way you should be allowed to have a gun.

On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 3:22:19 PM UTC-5, John S wrote:

It's unlikely to make a difference, for a variety of reasons. Starting with that just about all these mass shootings, the perp could have done about the same thing with semi-auto pistols. The shooting that just happened in Pensacola is a good example. He used a pistol. Second, there are so many out there already that unless you are going to confiscate the ones that people already own, the pool will remain for 100 years plus.

On the other hand there are some things that should be done. Like requiring an actual background investigation before the purchase of any firearm in all states. The instant background check is very minimal. The only ways to get on that no-buy list are to have been convicted of a felony or to have been adjudicated mentally ill by a court. Some states have a more reasonable approach, requiring a permit issued by the local police chief, after they do an actual background check. That would have stopped the Parkland FL school shooter. The police had a file with 21 visits to his home for violence, they knew he was being treated for mental illness, he had been expelled from school for making threats, abnormal behavior. But he wasn't in the fed instant check database, so in the lame state of FL, all he had to do was walk into Dick's and buy all the guns he wanted. The police should be required to do a basic background check, eg pull up any police records on the applicant, call up and speak to their employer, if they are 18 and living at home, go speak to the parents, talk to their school, etc. Speaking of the lame state of FL, one question I had was how did this Saudi shooter get a gun? The ATF answered that, he bought it legally. Turns out anyone here legally on a visa can buy a gun. MAy require a reason, like saying they need it for hunting, but they can legally buy one, as this shooter did. And the lame governor of FL says, "I didn't know that". Which shows how uninterested some politicians are, even after all the horrific mass shootings.

That's wrong. The Las Vegas shooter killed 58 and wounded 400+ and he used a hotel room full of semi-auto rifles. I don't disagree that in almost all cases the shooter could have done about the same thing with a semi-auto handgun, but there are a small number where semi-auto rifles were used. And the LV shooter essentially converted them into full autos by using bump stocks.

Experience also tells me that pro-gun nuts are similarly entrenched. That's one reason why I cancelled my NRA membership.

o limit gun ownership to people who have established that they don't have a criminal record, nor current psychiatric problems.

the gun itself.

in 1996, and we haven't had a mass shooting since then (not that we'd had m any before that).

in and junked, but the emphasis always was on keeping guns out of the hand s of nutcases.

d is an effective means to weed-out those who should not have guns for at l east the following reasons:

t time felon.

That's a bizarre argument. Might as well say there should be no laws again st murder, because you'll never weed out the first time murderer.

tors in denying the purchase or possession of a gun. However, I feel that some felonies, particularly those involving non-violent property crimes, te nd to be poor indicators of whether someone would actually assault someone. For example, in some jurisdictions, bouncing a $300 check at the bank is a felony. Does that really indicate that person is likely to kill someone with a gun?

Oh, BS. No one has been convicted of a felony for bouncing a $300 check. In fact, it would be very hard to find anyone convicted of anything for bouncing a $300 check. You'd have to be doing it INTENTIONALLY and repeate dly for a prosecutor to get interested in pursuing a case. And even then, if y ou passed several bad checks, clearly did it on purpose, it's extremely unlike ly a first time offender would be found guilty of a felony. It would typicall y be plead down to a misdemeanor or a deal where the charges are dropped as l ong as you stay out of trouble for 5 years, etc.

ween an outright ban on all guns (or even certain types of guns, since all guns are LETHAL), and a bright line test based on a prior felony conviction , or even prior mental health (while acknowledging that ownership prohibiti on is warranted in cases of violence-based felonies, and also for certain t ypes of mental health issues).

optimal and ripe for continued abuse, etc..., etc...

When this alleged abuse actually happens, ie when little old ladies who has no record, no mental health history, etc are being denied the right to buy a gun because of "abuse", then we can talk about that. So far, it's not happening. And in any jurisdicition, if a permit is denied, you have rights of appeal.

Whoey Louie wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

You are a goddamned idiot. I attack folks that attack me. Real simple. Especially folks that have a history of attacking me. That is why you might see me call someone an idiot, because I wait for an opportunity to treat the stupid f*ck the same way I was treated.

You are no exception, child.

I have a T-shirt for ya, though, punk f*ck retard.

It says:

____________I AM____________ _________A PATIENT,_________ ____________MAN.____________

___________I HAVE:__________ _____________GUNS, ____________KNIVES, ___________NEEDLES, ____________DRUGS... __But I do NOT go around killing people!

Maybe one day, you will get it. It's all about the comma.

Whoey Louie wrote in news:ba764046-b22b-4b54- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

As if they are capable of deciding criteria.

That is the whole problem. You have no clue how badly that can get morphed into rights violations and list compilation AGAINST citizens.

The DSM-5 is lame and those before it as well. Still stuck on Freudian stupid shit.

This is a slippery slope into freedoms violations.

Whoey Louie wrote in news:3f66a6a4-9dac-4f1f- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

He may as well pulled the trigger himself.

You are a goddamned idiot to think otherwise, and there are a bunch of Kurds missing family members that would like to do to you what Donald J. Trump did to them.

You are an idiot to think that it was a 'deranged comperison'. It was not. He is a murderous bastard, at best.

Whoey Louie wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

You are a goddamned idiot. Passing a bad check is a felony, regardless of the dollar value defrauded. The act of defrauding is what is felonious.

You are an idiot. There were cases on dockets across America every day before checkbooks faded into cell phones and debit cards.

You are an idiot. Most bad check cases are absolutely willfully and intentionally commited. There is a HUGE difference between a deliberate bad check and a simple overdraft.

You are a true idiot. A know nothing total retard.

What charge would passing a bad check get dropped down to? Property theft of the item you bought with the check? WRONG! FAIL!

You are an idiot. NO prosecutor is going to reduce a check fraud case.

That's the funny things about protected rights, "need" doesn't factor into it.

You don't "need" to post on USENET, but here you are.

There is already a "Hello Kitty" AR.

Okay, ban them too.

Dotary? That shows YOUR ignorance.

Yes, with enough votes I get to ban at least parts of our constitutional rights. They call that the Bill of Rights and it can be amended. Got it?

Please.

I am not an anti-gunner. I own a handgun, two rifles, and a shotgun.

You're right that the gun itself is not the problem, and that the person holding it is the problem. Same as with automobile or truck that, in the wrong hands, can be a lethal weapon. Or a commercial airliner.

In what way are assault weapons necessary? Hunting? Hobby? Or what? What do you do with them? Leave them where children can get hold of them?

The authors of the Bill of Rights had no idea that the future would spawn weapons of the sort we have now. Grow up!

The 2nd Amendment can be amended to accommodate today's technologies. That's why they call them amendments. Got it?

Chew on this...

John S wrote in news:qsp1uq$3ts$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

Pretty good stuff.

I like the retard walking up to gang members to ask to buy a gun.

Anybody here know where I can get a heavy payload drone and a mini- gun? Bwuahahahahahah!

What the hell is the connection? What protected rights? What is wrong with you?

e:

est

Jim Jefferies is a hoot. I remember the first time I saw this video, I sha red it with everyone I knew. Some actually didn't explode.

I like the comment on the second part.

"In Australia, health care is a right and gun ownership is a privilege. In America, gun ownership is a right and health care is a privilege. Some peop le really need to readjust their sights."

I had some conversation today about the health care issue. It is just so s ad that the many inferior countries to the US have universal healthcare and we have Republicans who want to remove the health care we've managed to sc rabble together. Why do people hate healthcare for others?

I guess I should try to not fork the thread. We'll see if people can refra in from replying to the healthcare part. lol

Don't forget the sleaze Kimmel show people hit the audience applause prompt every time they want to emphasize a political point. Nothing makes a moron feel good like social acceptance.

ote:

ng a

best

nk

es

er

he

hared it with everyone I knew. Some actually didn't explode.

n America, gun ownership is a right and health care is a privilege. Some pe ople really need to readjust their sights."

sad that the many inferior countries to the US have universal healthcare a nd we have Republicans who want to remove the health care we've managed to scrabble together. Why do people hate healthcare for others?

They don't hate healthcare for others, they just don't want to have to pay for someone else's healthcare when that person chooses not to work, or chooses to act irresponsibly, drop out of school, puke out kids they can't support, wind up working part time at McDonalds and unable to pay for their healthcare. They also fear another big govt program, that winds up costing 5x what it was forecast and once started, you can't get rid of it.

Sure, whatever you say, stupid. BTW, why are you always so angry? Anger and pro-gun, not a good combination, but not surprising either. If merely bouncing a check was a felony, our courts would be so full they'd have no time for real crimes.

I clearly pointed that out, stupid. The poster claimed that merely "bouncing" a $300 check was a felony. It's not.

No, I know how the courts actually work and how crimes of all kinds are plead down, stupid.

Whatever misdemeanor charge the prosecutor and court sees fit. Many first time offenders, they have programs where the charges are DROPPED altogether, provided you stay out of trouble for several years. Stop watching cartoons and follow the news.

Sure, they routinely reduce everything from murder charges to traffic tickets in plea deals, but not a check charge, no way.

ROFL

Wrong, always wrong.