Military related gun crimes and homicides are off limits in the gun control narrative. They have a monopoly on gun violence. The left expects the citizens to just accept that. Don't question those that are trained and permitted to be homicidal maniacs.
Military related gun crimes and homicides are off limits in the gun control narrative. They have a monopoly on gun violence. The left expects the citizens to just accept that. Don't question those that are trained and permitted to be homicidal maniacs.
Are yoiu and L4L implying I'm a gun hugger, a gun nut, or what? Becuase both of you have posted those kinds of things about me and have no clue where I stand on that position.
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
Are yoiu and L4L implying I'm a gun hugger, a gun nut, or what? Becuase both of you have posted those kinds of things about me and have no clue where I stand on that position.
You have stated clearly you want more restrictive gun laws.
I made the statement that you clearly are in favor of stricter gun laws.
You say show me, but don't deny it. Do you have amnesia?
In the topic Ga. backs relaxing gun laws for mentally ill you stated:
Stated conditions...NO GUN DEPRESSION...yes, it is a mental state that is not well defined and could be precursor to so much more...so sorry, no gun!
If treated for metal illness, they should be removed from combat zone, period...that's what I would support. They then should be evaluated for a general discharge....that's what I would support. If treated for metal illness prior to signing up for the military, they should be denied...that's what I would support.
Also:
Cicero Wrote: So if a person that checks themselves in for treatment for say anxiety or depression (like many returning troops) they do not have a right to armed self defense?
Your reply: NO!
Cicero Also Wrote: 57 million Americans are diagnosed with mental illness each year. That's about 20% of the population. Mental illness includes anorexia, alcoholism, obsessive compulsive behavior, autism spectrum disorder and more. Do you believe a person who sought treatment for depression at 17 shouldn't be able to own a gun at 30?
Your reply:NO!
Those responses are responses in favor of more restrictions, by way of tougher requirements for civilians and the military. Your views, if enacted would take guns away from tens of thousands of civilians and veterans.
I made the statement that you clearly are in favor of stricter gun laws. You say show me, but don't deny it. AHH, I UNDERSTAND. I'M ACCUSED AND GUILTY BEFORE PROVEN INNOCENT! YOU MAKE CLAIMS ABOUT ME AND I MUST DEFEND MYSELF OR ELSE THE CLAIMS ARE FACT! INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, THAT'S HOW LIFE IS SUPPOSED TO WORK, NOT ACCORDING TO HOW YOU WANT IT TO WORK FOR YOU! Do you have amnesia?
In the topic Ga. backs relaxing gun laws for mentally ill you stated:
Stated conditions...NO GUN DEPRESSION...yes, it is a mental state that is not well defined and could be precursor to so much more...so sorry, no gun! SO BECAUSE MY BELIEF IS THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT SHOULD BE USED TO DISQUALIFY SOMEONE FROM OWNING WEAPONS, THAT MEANS I AM IN FAVOR OF STRICTER GUN LAWS....NOT THAT IT MEANS I BELIEVE IN SAFETY NETS TO PREVENT A SITUATION OF PUTTING GUNS IN THE HANDS OF UNSTABLE PEOPLE? I THOUGHT YOU AND OTHERS HAVE SAID THAT MENTAL ILLNESS IS A DISEASE AND MENTAL ILLNESS KILLS, NOT GIUNS....PUTTING THE TWO TOGETHER KILLS! IF YO UWANT TO TAKE THIS OPINION AS STRICTER GUN LAWS, THEN I'M VERY GUILTY AND PREFER TO BE GUILTY THAT A CONTRIBUTOR TO ALLOWING UNSTABLE PEOPLE OWNING WEAPONS. If treated for metal illness, they should be removed from combat zone, period...that's what I would support. They then should be evaluated for a general discharge....that's what I would support. If treated for metal illness prior to signing up for the military, they should be denied...that's what I would support. AND AGAIN, IT GOES TO THE ABOVE AND ALSO THE MEMBERS ON THIS FORUM THAT HAVE OPENLY STATED THAT MILITARY PEOPLE (LAW ENFORCEMENT, ETC.) SHOULD NOT HAVE WEAPONS IF THEY ARE MENTALLY PROVEN UNSTABLE....SO WHAT IS THE ISSUE....OH YAH, THAT MEANS I AM IN FAVOR OF SWEEPING GUN RESTRICTIONS. MY BAD!!!!! Also:
Cicero Wrote: So if a person that checks themselves in for treatment for say anxiety or depression (like many returning troops) they do not have a right to armed self defense?
Your reply: NO! ANSWERED/EXPLAINED!
Cicero Also Wrote: 57 million Americans are diagnosed with mental illness each year. That's about 20% of the population. Mental illness includes anorexia, alcoholism, obsessive compulsive behavior, autism spectrum disorder and more. Do you believe a person who sought treatment for depression at 17 shouldn't be able to own a gun at 30?
Your reply:NO! ANSWERED/EXPLAINED!
Those responses are responses in favor of more restrictions, by way of tougher requirements for civilians and the military. Your views, if enacted would take guns away from tens of thousands of civilians and veterans.
SO NOW I UNDERSTAND, YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF ANYONE/EVERYONE OWNING GUNS, WIHOUT RESTRICTIONS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR PROVEN MENTAL INCAPACITY OR OTHER PROVEN RISKS. YOU WANT A SOCIETY WHERE WE DO NOT EVEN ATTEMPT TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, AND THEN YOU CAN SIT BACK IN YOUR IVORY FRIGGIN TOWER AND b**ch THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T PROTECT OR CARE ABOUT THE CITIZENS. AT WHAT POINT IN LIFE WERE YOU AWARE THAT YOU CAN ALWAYS HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO? YOU CAN'T HAVE IT ALL WAYS WITHOUT SOME CONTROLS, AND THOSE CONTROLS HAVE TO BE JUDICIALLY APPLIED BASED ON PROVEN FACTUAL POSITIONS.
LET ME TRY TO PUT THIS TOPIC TO BED ONCE AND FOR ALL: MY POSITION IS THAT GUN LAW "REFORM" IS NEEDED TO PREVENT PEOPLE THAT SHOULD OWN GUNS FROM OWNING THEM. I DO NOIT SUPPORT WISDE SWEEPING REFORM NOR DO I NECESSARILY AGREE WITH THE STRICTER LAWS THAT NY IS IMPOSING, AS I AM NOT CONVINCED THAT IT WOULD PREVENT SANDY HOOK OR OTHER SIMILAR. I FEEL REFORM IS NEEDED BUT I THINK IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD HOW TO DO THAT, SO GOVERMENT IS ADDRESSING IT WITH WIDE SWEEPING CHANGES IN HOPES OF POSSIBLY ELIMINATING FUTURE ATROCITIES LIKE SANDY HOOK. DO I SUPPORT THE NY GUN LAW CHANGES, NOT ENTIRELY. DO I THINK AVERAGE JOE SHMUCK NEEDS AND ASSAULT WEAPON(I.E. FULLY AUTOMATIC 120 ROUND BANANA CLIP...) NO. DO I THINK OUR RIGHTS ARE BEING INFRINGED? YES, TO SOME EXTENT, BUT NO WHERE NEAR THE EXTENT A FEW OF YOU FEEL. HOW CAN WE AS A SOCIETY, HAVE A CLEAR CONCIENCE BY REMOVING ALL RESTRICTIONS TO ALLOW TOTALLY FREE WILL WHEN WE KNOW THAT SUCH BOAD SWEEPING FREEDOM CAN AND WILL LEAD TO AVOIDABLE CRIMES OF MURDER? DON'T WE HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY?
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
― George Carlin
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
LET ME TRY TO PUT THIS TOPIC TO BED ONCE AND FOR ALL: MY POSITION IS THAT GUN LAW "REFORM" IS NEEDED TO PREVENT PEOPLE THAT SHOULD OWN GUNS FROM OWNING THEM.
Wow!
You wrote:
"REFORM" IS NEEDED TO PREVENT PEOPLE THAT SHOULD OWN GUNS FROM OWNING THEM. "REFORM" IS NEEDED TO PREVENT PEOPLE THAT SHOULD OWN GUNS FROM OWNING THEM. "REFORM" IS NEEDED TO PREVENT PEOPLE THAT SHOULD OWN GUNS FROM OWNING THEM. "REFORM" IS NEEDED TO PREVENT PEOPLE THAT SHOULD OWN GUNS FROM OWNING THEM. "REFORM" IS NEEDED TO PREVENT PEOPLE THAT SHOULD OWN GUNS FROM OWNING THEM.
"REFORM" IS NEEDED TO PREVENT PEOPLE THAT SHOULD OWN GUNS FROM OWNING THEM. "REFORM" IS NEEDED TO PREVENT PEOPLE THAT SHOULD OWN GUNS FROM OWNING THEM. "REFORM" IS NEEDED TO PREVENT PEOPLE THAT SHOULD OWN GUNS FROM OWNING THEM. "REFORM" IS NEEDED TO PREVENT PEOPLE THAT SHOULD OWN GUNS FROM OWNING THEM. "REFORM" IS NEEDED TO PREVENT PEOPLE THAT SHOULD OWN GUNS FROM OWNING THEM.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
SO WHAT IS THE ISSUE....OH YAH, THAT MEANS I AM IN FAVOR OF SWEEPING GUN RESTRICTIONS. MY BAD!!!!!
Sorry for repeating my response, but here it is again: Those responses are responses in favor of more restrictions, by way of tougher requirements for civilians and the military. Your views, if enacted would take guns away from tens of thousands of civilians and veterans.
SO NOW I UNDERSTAND, YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF ANYONE/EVERYONE OWNING GUNS, WIHOUT RESTRICTIONS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR PROVEN MENTAL INCAPACITY OR OTHER PROVEN RISKS. YOU WANT A SOCIETY WHERE WE DO NOT EVEN ATTEMPT TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, AND THEN YOU CAN SIT BACK IN YOUR IVORY FRIGGIN TOWER AND b**ch THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T PROTECT OR CARE ABOUT THE CITIZENS. AT WHAT POINT IN LIFE WERE YOU AWARE THAT YOU CAN ALWAYS HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO? YOU CAN'T HAVE IT ALL WAYS WITHOUT SOME CONTROLS, AND THOSE CONTROLS HAVE TO BE JUDICIALLY APPLIED BASED ON PROVEN FACTUAL POSITIONS.
Because I don't want tougher restrictions which is the topic of discussion, it does not mean I want absolutely no restrictions. I want no new restrictions.
You want and will support new restrictions. I never said you were in favor of sweeping new laws.
I said you stated clearly you want tougher laws. And now you post clearly again that you do.
I feel comfortable with the laws regarding guns before the safe act, which I absolutely do not support.
You dreamed the part where I support lawlessness for gun sales and ownership.
I would possibly support a law that could be proven to save lives, but does not take away guns from law abiding citizens.
It would depend on the exact wording and what gets tied in collectively.
Respect for liberty is all that I am asking for, from the over reaching socialist engineers.
As I have said, the government needs to teach by example, not inflict deadly force on the people.
Disarming cops(guns) would save the lives of hundreds of innocents that die at the hands of cops each year. Police weapons are the number one killer of cops as well.
Military weapons are the number one killer of soldiers on active duty who kill themselves more often than the enemy does.
And then you have ex military veterans who use guns to kill themselves more often than they are killed by the entire population of the country. Banning guns from ex military would save a life every 66 minutes.
Those would not be infringement of those people's liberty. It would be a necessary result of dangerous employment that teaches them to kill with guns. A voluntary act.
These are issues that you know full well will save lives.
The majority of police deaths, the majority of active duty deaths, the majority of ex-military deaths and the people who are executed during arrest.(Innocent until proven guilty)
Now, if you want to discuss how to enforce laws without killing the enforcers as well as the accused, or settling military disputes without killing the innocent on both sides as well as the self inflicted deaths of participants likely from both sides, I would be willing to discuss options.
I'd bet money that suicide is an issue on both sides of military conflicts.
I'd also bet money that suicides are likely on both sides of law enforcement too.
We have all heard of suicide by cop. These suicides are enforcement related.
All of these total over 10,000 per year. Probably all are preventable without restricting the law abiding members of society from owning guns.
Too late. You don't get to claim a typo for your Freudian blurting of the truth.
Best you can do...but still you knew it was a typo, right thumb sucker? See, there is no way to have open honest discussions with your likes. You must make everything your way, your advantage. You are narrow minded....no, I'm sorry, you are CLOSED MINDED. You are fanatic about only your way of life and are too blind to see others have differeing opinions that are just as valid if not more so than yours. You are annoyed by my responses to you, but when I direct specifics to you or open with thought provoking ideas, you shun them in favor of moving into your agenda. Must be sad to live in your world, becuase it doesn't allow for exploring possibilities beyond your doom and gloom.
PS - I'm still in Europe for 2 more days and accessing the forum is restricted for some reason thru some carriers, so I can only try to join from my office during work hours, and am rushed to try and join....so yes, so sorry, THAT WAS A TYPO!!!!
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
Sorry for repeating my response, but here it is again: Those responses are responses in favor of more restrictions, by way of tougher requirements for civilians and the military. Your views, if enacted would take guns away from tens of thousands of civilians and veterans.
Because I don't want tougher restrictions which is the topic of discussion, it does not mean I want absolutely no restrictions. I want no new restrictions.
You want and will support new restrictions. I never said you were in favor of sweeping new laws.
I said you stated clearly you want tougher laws. And now you post clearly again that you do.
I feel comfortable with the laws regarding guns before the safe act, which I absolutely do not support.
You dreamed the part where I support lawlessness for gun sales and ownership.
I would possibly support a law that could be proven to save lives, but does not take away guns from law abiding citizens.
It would depend on the exact wording and what gets tied in collectively.
Respect for liberty is all that I am asking for, from the over reaching socialist engineers.
As I have said, the government needs to teach by example, not inflict deadly force on the people.
Disarming cops(guns) would save the lives of hundreds of innocents that die at the hands of cops each year. Police weapons are the number one killer of cops as well.
Military weapons are the number one killer of soldiers on active duty who kill themselves more often than the enemy does.
And then you have ex military veterans who use guns to kill themselves more often than they are killed by the entire population of the country. Banning guns from ex military would save a life every 66 minutes.
Those would not be infringement of those people's liberty. It would be a necessary result of dangerous employment that teaches them to kill with guns. A voluntary act.
These are issues that you know full well will save lives.
The majority of police deaths, the majority of active duty deaths, the majority of ex-military deaths and the people who are executed during arrest.(Innocent until proven guilty)
Now, if you want to discuss how to enforce laws without killing the enforcers as well as the accused, or settling military disputes without killing the innocent on both sides as well as the self inflicted deaths of participants likely from both sides, I would be willing to discuss options.
I'd bet money that suicide is an issue on both sides of military conflicts.
I'd also bet money that suicides are likely on both sides of law enforcement too.
We have all heard of suicide by cop. These suicides are enforcement related.
All of these total over 10,000 per year. Probably all are preventable without restricting the law abiding members of society from owning guns.
Logged
