New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

California shooter: Out on bail 9 months awaiting trial on murder charges

middleview

President
Supporting Member
are you trying to insinuate that the US Airforce is not part the US government? Or that its less worrisome when a military branch mishandles risks like this, as opposed to the polic,e the courts, etc?
I'm pointing out that organizations have procedures. When a procedure fails, the reason for the failure must be evaluated and corrected. That is happening.

Each new law requires a lot of changes. Sometimes things are missed and are only identified when there is a problem. We now know that the military has not been in compliance with the law. It is being fixed.

Are you trying to insinuate that because of this we should just do away with background checks all together?
 

Constitutional Sheepdog

][][][%er!!!!!!!
I'm pointing out that organizations have procedures. When a procedure fails, the reason for the failure must be evaluated and corrected. That is happening.

Each new law requires a lot of changes. Sometimes things are missed and are only identified when there is a problem. We now know that the military has not been in compliance with the law. It is being fixed.

Are you trying to insinuate that because of this we should just do away with background checks all together?
the procedure wasn't the failure the failure happen when the procedure wasn't followed.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
The thousands of times? I thought you said it was only 200 who had been arrested. That means thousands of time there was really no background check needed and the person would have been ok with the firearm with or without the background check, and at best 200 who shouldn't have.

Yes, we are talking about my civil rights, and I will not have them tampered with frivolously in the name of a law that you can't even get enforced in an anti-gun state like California. You simply reject the examples that show, and they do show, that even when they are used background checks don't stop crimes from happening. You think UBC ais just around the corner -- I think its unlikely in the next three to five years, and possibly beyond that. But lets say they pass, what do you think will happen?
Since the law passed there have been thousands of denials among transactions between private parties.

I think that within 15 to 20 years of passing a Universal Background Check law we will begin to see substantial reductions in gun crimes. I think it will take that long because it will take a while for illegal guns to be confiscated due to a crime or for the guns to become unusable due to age and misuse. Obtaining a new gun will become harder for criminals.
That is a good thing.

You have argued about your rights in the past....you have the right to bear arms. You do not have the right to sell a gun to anyone you choose. That is not in the 2nd amendment.
 

connieb

Senator
How about you just stop this shit entirely? Learn to deal with the fact that it's a free country and people can do pretty much whatever they want up until their behavior endangers someone else?


Why is that so hard for some folks? What compels y'all to try and control everything?o_O
Fear. They are want to be coddled, cared for and looked after.
 

connieb

Senator
The shooter in Texas should not have owned guns. He should not have been able to buy them. Cho should not have been able to buy his guns. In both cases it was due to a government agency not complying with the law...in both cases that has been or is being remedied.

You argue that it isn't worth doing if it isn't perfect. I disagree. People disobey traffic signs all the time...should we take all the signs down?

The perfect solution would not be acceptable to you because that would require registration...so that is off the table. The next best solution is one you dismiss because it isn't perfect.

The one thing I would add to Colorado's law is that if you sell a gun without a BC then you may be complicit in any crime committed with that gun.
Neither of those people should have been walking free among the populace.
 

freyasman

Senator
Are you asking how police and/or ATF could confiscate weapons? You're easily perplexed. They bust into a house and take them. If the perp is there, he gets arrested and hauled off to the slammer.

Got it now?
How?
How many LEOs are there in this country? Local, state, and federal? How many gun owners are there?
We adults did the math on this shit years ago, and we know that your little masturbatory fantasy of confiscation is just that, a fantasy.
http://soldiersystems.net/2013/03/28/2nd-amendment-and-the-kool-aid-drinkers-by-paul-howe/
 

freyasman

Senator
Yeah...I can understand you wanting the freedom to sell a full auto UZI to a nine year old...
Why is it that you are only upset about background checks? How about stop signs...shouldn't we do something about the people who want to control our driving habits?

Waiting until someone actually kills a bunch of people before we do something about it is a little late for those who are dead, don't ya think? Background checks have not made Colorado less free unless you are in the business of selling guns illegally....now it is a little bit less convenient to make money by buying up guns in one place and selling them in downtown Denver to the gang bangers. Now you have to drive to places where it is easier to buy a gun from a private party...like Nebraska or Kansas....Since I don't buy or sell guns, my freedoms are doing just fine, thanks.

The short answer to your "why don't you guys just stop this shit" is "because the 1st amendment says I don't have to".....
Well, unfortunately for you, we don't punish people for crimes that haven't been committed yet. So get over it already.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Fear. They are want to be coddled, cared for and looked after.
Is that the best you can do? Thousands of people murdered each year and any attempt to minimize gun crime is all about someone wanting to be "coddled"?

You guys lose on the merits of your arguments so the best you can do is insults.
 

freyasman

Senator
What ammo restrictions are you talking about?

The background check law didn't fail. The military failed to comply with the law. That is being fixed without passing a new law.
You really think that kinda shit is going to get fixed? Not by our military.... fvcking up paperwork is what they excel at.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Well, unfortunately for you, we don't punish people for crimes that haven't been committed yet. So get over it already.
Carrying on a debate here is getting to be a bit bizarre. Are you all going to the same debate tactics class? You all seem to use the same kind of attack strategy...when did I say I wanted to punish people for crimes that haven't been committed?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
You really think that kinda shit is going to get fixed? Not by our military.... fvcking up paperwork is what they excel at.
Procedures Manuals are updated and people are expected to follow those procedures.
I can readily see how this happened...a law was passed that required notification of convictions...nobody updated the procedures. It looks like the entire military justice system is flawed in this....I read that exactly one domestic violence conviction was reported by the military since 2007.
 

connieb

Senator
Totally different topic.
No its not. You are focusing on them getting guns. they could ALSO have not committed those crimes if they were appropriately removed from society as well.

why should everyone else's rights be restricted when proven nutters are allowed to roam free?
 

connieb

Senator
Is that the best you can do? Thousands of people murdered each year and any attempt to minimize gun crime is all about someone wanting to be "coddled"?

You guys lose on the merits of your arguments so the best you can do is insults.
Thousands of people who engage in criminal activity and/ or are closely associated with criminals are murdered each year. That is natural selection. or a hazard of the job. Nothing that the rest of us need to concern ourselves with as long as they are mostly just offing each other.

A few hundred people each year off themselves with guns. Again - not anyone else's problem. Probably saves us decades of incarceration, treatment and/or disability and welfare support.

A hundred people or so who are completely innocent of any association with crime, are random victims or victims of targeted violence are killed each year. In a country of over 300, million... sorry but it is not a statistically significant concern of any rational person.
 

freyasman

Senator
You ignore the thousands of times the UBC law in Colorado did work. You insist the law must be perfect or forget about it. I can tell you about any law you choose as to how it was good, but not perfect. The law and all the related organizations and state laws that have to take it into consideration will take time....I'm good with that. You should get used to it because we are probably one or two mass shootings away from a Universal Background Check law. You would do better to contribute to it rather than stand your ground and get what others design.

An Assault Weapons ban may be next and that truly would be a silly way to spend time.
Question; out of those 7000 denials you keep bringing up, how many of them were erroneous? As in, how many of them were purchasers who were perfectly legal to buy, but were denied in error because their name was similar to that of a prohibited person?
Do you know? Because that is probably the single most common reason for a NICS denial.
 

freyasman

Senator
Is that the best you can do? Thousands of people murdered each year and any attempt to minimize gun crime is all about someone wanting to be "coddled"?

You guys lose on the merits of your arguments so the best you can do is insults.
None of your arguments have any merit as has been shown, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again........ your continual insistence that they do, doesn't change anything.
 
Top