No thoughts and prayers today?

[Old Onkyo]

Where is the liberal support for stricter gun-crime penalties? Again with the abdication of personal responsibility. Let's say if you commit a felony with a firearm, there is a mandatory 20 years in prison... no parole. This on top of any other charges. Rather than hold offenders responsible, you want to whittle away the rights of law-abiding citizens with laws that would have no affect on actual criminals. This tells me all the liberal compassion is nothing but a smokescreen to hide their big, socialist government agenda. The affected families and friends are devastated. Why don't you want to crack down on the offenders? (I think I know.)

Make the registered gun owner responsible for the crime committed.

Last time I sold a vehicle, I had the buyer meet me at DMV to transfer title. Why, because I did not want to be financially responsible for a vehicle I no longer owned.

 

[markw]

 

[Irvrobinson]

Irv, kind of like the NFL? Greedy bastards. Just saying, I could post up facts, on my 2nd cup of Joe and it's to early to do a wikilinks or Google. Have a one good today Irv.

Exactly like the NFL. There are well over a million organizations registered as 503c non-profits, including churches. Some are innocuous, like every symphony and community orchestra in the country, and some are like the NFL and the NRA.

As bad as some 503c corporations are, charitable foundations are worse. Reading about the Gates Foundation, for example, turns my stomach. How about a $500 million campus that's a big tax deduction?

https://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2009/11/16/does-the-gates-foundation-need-a-500-million-shrine/

 

[Phase 2]

Exactly like the NFL. There are well over a million organizations registered as 503c non-profits, including churches. Some are innocuous, like every symphony and community orchestra in the country, and some are like the NFL and the NRA.

As bad as some 503c corporations are, charitable foundations are worse. Reading about the Gates Foundation, for example, turns my stomach. How about a $500 million campus that's a big tax deduction?

https://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2009/11/16/does-the-gates-foundation-need-a-500-million-shrine/

Wow! I didn't realize it was that many. So on top of the tax breaks that corporation to get plus all the money handouts to 3rd World countries and the government special projects. It's no wonder there is a 70 trillion deficit government and private in this country. Our future looks bleak to say the least. Me being a common sense man, our grandchildren's great-grandchildren will never see the light at the end of the tunnel with that kind of deficit. Social security administration is the biggest pyramid scheme ever created don't you think?

 

[Phase 2]

I think these post tend to end in a flaming row.

However the answer though not currently popular is what I think the answer is.

Making it harder to get guns will do little to nothing to stop this.
We have to face the fact it is time to abolish the Second Amendment via Constitutional change.

We need to make really tough lasting change. That means than only a select few tactical police units and the military should be armed. Regular police should be unarmed.

All guns need to be turned in by everyone else. There needs to be severe and harsh penalties for anyone not authorized in possession of a gun.

Nothing less than this will stop the carnage.

Doc, with all due respect I disagree. Our constitutional rights put there by our forefathers, founders of our nation. What I see that needs to be done is for our government agencies to do there effing job!! Better background checks, all reviews for gun ownership goes to the FBI! They are dropping the ball! I checked with the State Police here in Louisiana, word for word all gun owner or gun purchases, background checks goes through the FBI! Now if the work load is to much for one of our law enforcement agencies which this one FBI's Federal than We as citizens of the United States of America must demand from our officials in Congress, Senate to do their effing job!! Our Great Nation deserves nothing less or the legal citizens suffer consequences from our elected officials!!

 

[RichB]

I believe the guy or one of these shooters had a 100 round mag/clip. Tell me how many deer are people shooting at in the woods with that? What Hunter needs a 100 round clip?

That was the Antifa shooter.

- Rich

 

[lovinthehd]

FYI- we had 40 mass shootings during Obama, 220 people died.

Nice non-sequitur. Far more under the drumpf in a much shorter time, and he's egging it on.

 

[herbu]

Funny how the people who want MORE laws can't explain why they're not interested in stricter enforcement of the laws we have. Does anybody else see the pattern? Anybody else notice how the libs are so opposed to enforcing the laws we have, yet are adamant about needing new laws? That is why I doubt their sincerity. It's never about dealing with the particular crime in question. It's always about expanding government.

 

[highfigh]

Nice non-sequitur. Far more under the drumpf in a much shorter time, and he's egging it on.

It seems that you didn't look at the link- one shooter during Obama killed more than all of the shooters so far during Trump but it's not a contest.

I get it- you hate Trump but there were 40 mass shootings during Obama- that's more than any other 8 year period. "Far more" is just not correct. Hell, during W there were 12 with about 90 killed- I suspect the killers during Obama felt so helpless that they couldn't think of anything else to do about it.

 

[Trell]

Funny how the people who want MORE laws can't explain why they're not interested in stricter enforcement of the laws we have. Does anybody else see the pattern? Anybody else notice how the libs are so opposed to enforcing the laws we have, yet are adamant about needing new laws? That is why I doubt their sincerity. It's never about dealing with the particular crime in question. It's always about expanding government.

You must be in great shape for pounding all those straw men of yours!

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/07/us/el-paso-crusius-gun-warning/index.html

The El Paso shooting suspect's mother called the Allen, Texas, Police Department weeks before the shooting because she was concerned about her son owning an "AK" type firearm, lawyers for the family confirmed to CNN.​

​

The mother contacted police because she was worried about her son owning the weapon given his age, maturity level and lack of experience handling such a firearm, attorneys Chris Ayres and R. Jack Ayres said.​

During the call, the mother was transferred to a public safety officer who told her that -- based on her description of the situation -- her son, 21, was legally allowed to purchase the weapon, the attorneys said. The mother did not provide her name or her son's name, and police did not seek any additional information from her before the call concluded, they added.​

​

 

[highfigh]

The El Paso shooting suspect's mother called the Allen, Texas, Police Department weeks before the shooting because she was concerned about her son owning an "AK" type firearm, lawyers for the family confirmed to CNN.​

​

The mother contacted police because she was worried about her son owning the weapon given his age, maturity level and lack of experience handling such a firearm, attorneys Chris Ayres and R. Jack Ayres said.​

During the call, the mother was transferred to a public safety officer who told her that -- based on her description of the situation -- her son, 21, was legally allowed to purchase the weapon, the attorneys said. The mother did not provide her name or her son's name, and police did not seek any additional information from her before the call concluded, they added.​

​

Maybe this could/would have been prevented if red flag laws were in place, but as usual, someone has to step up and do the work to take the gun(s) and deal with the person who doesn't want to lose their gun(s) due to someone calling it in. I wonder if Adam Lanz killed his mother because she didn't like him having so many guns, although she supposedly bought the AR-style gun for him.

There's a guy in my neighborhood who has threatened suicide by gun while drunk and killed a light pole while drunk & carrying- he spent 60 days in the house of correction for the last one and lost his CCP, but I'm not sure if they took his other guns. I would like him gone, but second best would be to take his guns- I doubt anything I could say would have an effect and if he starts shooting randomly, my house is too close to his, for my comfort.

 

[RichB]

The gun deaths and injuries each weekend in major cities dwarf mass shooting. All are bad. Gun laws including federal are not enforced.
Not only do our elites of both parties not care about their lives they also ignore the lack of educational opportunity.

- Rich

 

[pewternhrata]

You must be in great shape for pounding all those straw men of yours!

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/07/us/el-paso-crusius-gun-warning/index.html

The El Paso shooting suspect's mother called the Allen, Texas, Police Department weeks before the shooting because she was concerned about her son owning an "AK" type firearm, lawyers for the family confirmed to CNN.​

​

The mother contacted police because she was worried about her son owning the weapon given his age, maturity level and lack of experience handling such a firearm, attorneys Chris Ayres and R. Jack Ayres said.​

During the call, the mother was transferred to a public safety officer who told her that -- based on her description of the situation -- her son, 21, was legally allowed to purchase the weapon, the attorneys said. The mother did not provide her name or her son's name, and police did not seek any additional information from her before the call concluded, they added.​

​

Also in the article, confused why you left it out...smh..

The public safety officer asked the mother twice whether her son was suicidal or had threatened any other persons, which she indicated was not the case, according to Felty.
Felty told reporters at a news conference that an internal security camera recorded one side of the conversation, and that the woman never identified herself or her son.
According to the family's attorneys, the mother's inquiry was "informational" in nature and was not motivated out of a concern that her son posed a threat to anybody.

 

[Trell]

Also in the article, confused why you left it out...smh..

The public safety officer asked the mother twice whether her son was suicidal or had threatened any other persons, which she indicated was not the case, according to Felty.
Felty told reporters at a news conference that an internal security camera recorded one side of the conversation, and that the woman never identified herself or her son.
According to the family's attorneys, the mother's inquiry was "informational" in nature and was not motivated out of a concern that her son posed a threat to anybody.

What do you think should happen when the mother phones the police that "she was concerned about her son owning an 'AK' type firearm" ... "because she was worried about her son owning the weapon given his age, maturity level and lack of experience handling such a firearm"?

Really, seriously, what should be done?

 

[pewternhrata]

What do you think should happen when the mother phones the police that "she was concerned about her son owning an 'AK' type firearm" ... "because she was worried about her son owning the weapon given his age, maturity level and lack of experience handling such a firearm"?

Really, seriously, what should be done?

I agree and get where your coming from but at the same time what should have been done? Mother cpuld have asked to speak to someone else, call back, call a different dept. Instead SHE left it at "the mother's inquiry was "informational" in nature and was not motivated out of a concern that her son posed a threat to anybody." Maybe she should have expressed a higher concern, left contact info so someone could get back to her. She made one piss poor attempt and gave up, she seems like a very concerned parent...smh...

 

[Old Onkyo]

Funny how the people who want MORE laws can't explain why they're not interested in stricter enforcement of the laws we have. Does anybody else see the pattern? Anybody else notice how the libs are so opposed to enforcing the laws we have, yet are adamant about needing new laws? That is why I doubt their sincerity. It's never about dealing with the particular crime in question. It's always about expanding government.

Which laws are you referring to?

 

[Ponzio]

Doc, with all due respect I disagree. Our constitutional rights put there by our forefathers, founders of our nation. What I see that needs to be done is for our government agencies to do there effing job!! Better background checks, all reviews for gun ownership goes to the FBI! They are dropping the ball! I checked with the State Police here in Louisiana, word for word all gun owner or gun purchases, background checks goes through the FBI! Now if the work load is to much for one of our law enforcement agencies which this one FBI's Federal than We as citizens of the United States of America must demand from our officials in Congress, Senate to do their effing job!! Our Great Nation deserves nothing less or the legal citizens suffer consequences from our elected officials!!

And you've hit the nail on the head. You can pass all the laws in the world but if you starve the funding to enforce it ... OSHA, the EPA comes to mind... it's all for naught.

Why isn't there a national centralized gun ownership data base for any local/state/federal to access? Privacy concerns? Really, really? But nobody thinks twice about revealing they're private information on the internet or cell phone? Location, credit card, etc.

It's all smoke & mirrors folks.

 

[panteragstk]

What do you think should happen when the mother phones the police that "she was concerned about her son owning an 'AK' type firearm" ... "because she was worried about her son owning the weapon given his age, maturity level and lack of experience handling such a firearm"?

Really, seriously, what should be done?

Let's be honest, the mother could have also called the police if her son bought a new Dodge Demon saying she was worried about him having that at his age and lack of driving experience. A very VALID concern, but it's not up to the police to verify that people can actually use the things they purchase.

I DO understand that guns are different, but what would they have done? Go to his house and say "hey, your mom thinks you need to be trained on how to use this gun you purchased." He would have said "nope, I'm good" and that would have been the end of it. The luckiest we could have gotten is that he would have somehow been suspicious enough for them to search his house, but he would have had to go way overboard for that to happen.

However, this is a prime example of people being able to purchase things they probably shouldn't be allowed to. Cars included. Tons of people kill/injure themselves by driving things that are much to fast for them. Guns are the same. Like it or not, we somehow have to be able to protect people from their own stupidity, but be careful enough to only do it when it comes to potential harm to others. Very tricky thing to do.

 

[RichB]

Let's be honest, the mother could have also called the police if her son bought a new Dodge Demon saying she was worried about him having that at his age and lack of driving experience. A very VALID concern, but it's not up to the police to verify that people can actually use the things they purchase.

I DO understand that guns are different, but what would they have done? Go to his house and say "hey, your mom thinks you need to be trained on how to use this gun you purchased." He would have said "nope, I'm good" and that would have been the end of it. The luckiest we could have gotten is that he would have somehow been suspicious enough for them to search his house, but he would have had to go way overboard for that to happen.

However, this is a prime example of people being able to purchase things they probably shouldn't be allowed to. Cars included. Tons of people kill/injure themselves by driving things that are much to fast for them. Guns are the same. Like it or not, we somehow have to be able to protect people from their own stupidity, but be careful enough to only do it when it comes to potential harm to others. Very tricky thing to do.

Since government worker are almost impossible to fire, the competence ratio is likely lower than the private sector. So, I am not sure I trust their judgement.

Also, you forgot boats

- RIch

 

[GO-NAD!]

Funny how the people who want MORE laws can't explain why they're not interested in stricter enforcement of the laws we have. Does anybody else see the pattern? Anybody else notice how the libs are so opposed to enforcing the laws we have, yet are adamant about needing new laws? That is why I doubt their sincerity. It's never about dealing with the particular crime in question. It's always about expanding government.

Doesn't the USA already have the highest incarceration rates in the world? Besides, the existing laws deal with the aftermath of gun crime and are clearly not an effective deterrent.