Another NRA republican mass shooting

RJH,

In fact he was an African American, originally from Queens, N.Y., although I'm not claiming that to have any relevance to the incident. But it does matter if he was a republican AND a member of the NRA or not as that is what your thread title claims. But then again ALL your thread titles seem to have intent to demean Republicans, Conservatives, or anyone Right of center politically.
Perhaps a better handle for you would be HennyPenny or ChickenLittle?

 

Can you elaborate on that a little better?

 

Him saying 'no more war' and our guys will be home soon, Are they?

He is pumped to kill some Syrians and will do almost anything it take to do so.

Drones, Drones while sleeping, And more obama drones. They never stop killing in the name of the Osama.

Aiding muslims to overthrow government's. Giving away fully loaded fighter jets.

Fast and furious

I could go on, But its pointless. The writing is on the wall and it all started when the HNIC scammed his way into office and is still scamming to this day.

Goes out of his way to mourn the death of a crack head whore whitney houston, But never even muttered a word about a true American hero chris kyle.

And people still have the balls to say dubya was a 'warmonger' and is worse than Osama.

 

Well, if someone is going to make statements like that, they sure as hell ought to be able to back them up. Which he couldn't, by reading his response.

 

Or you just cant read, Plain and simple. All of above are osamas fuck ups. You asked, There they are. Sorry no links and you have to do some work, But to say 'couldn't', You are in lala land or choose no to believe.

 

I see what the right is against constantly, but what is it for, please??Thanks.

 

huh?

 

And so we agree that the specifics on what we filter FOR when it comes to what is specifically IN the backround check, we'll probably find some agreement.

For instance, you know I think Colorado and Washington State are in the right direction with legalizing recreational weed, so by deduction you can assume I think the fact that you have some THC in your body is a stupid disqualification reason in back round checks to begin with.

No, specifically I'm talking about backround checks flagging and ranking the severity of different mental health disorders and instances where a particular individual has had run-ins with the law, and where the specific police reports indicate how fast that individual reacts to being physically confrontational when approached.

(How fast did the situation escalate to them reaching for a knife, and gun? Did past employers and employees say they had a hot head or was the type to hold grudges?)

At a certain point, you're gonna see a behavior pattern that's gonna be more specific and will separate and create a distinction between a new mom who is suffering an instance of postpartum depression. (I recommend a totally different kinda of healthcare treatment in that instance that has nothing to do with guns given the fact that there's more than one way to kill yourself or kid, in that instance that's a pure healthcare job creation thing I would advocate for, aka: healthcare professionals to care for postpartum mothers, and for employers to allow new parents time off to raise future citiziens of our country in return for tax breaks, but i'm going off topic now)

 

No, if anything it's an example of government having power in theory, and then just not following up on it.

Someone else also said the argument was skew to the level of power the government has, I kinda of agree with that person. I forgot who said it.

 

monkjr, would you require those sorts of checks to be done universally?

 

------------------------------------------------------

 

Yes, I have been saying that from the beginning. I don't believe state backround checks work, which has given the myth that they won't work at the federal level either.

The truth is, if you want to buy a gun on the black market, you have to have a certain amount of street-cred, so I don't buy the counterargument that we wouldn't see a reduction in the amount of mass shootings like the ones we've seen in the past 5 years.

If you look at the frequency and statistics of these kind of events, they have been rising, and when you look at the criminal profiles of these people, you see a pattern that legislation can begin to isolate rather than giant broad policy bans.

But backround checks are the first step that does have to happen broadly, so you can begin getting the fundamental data to implement any policy that would be specific and leave the responsible gun-owners alone.

You want your right to exercise the 2nd Amendment, then prove you're receiving consistent treatment for whatever mentally ails you. Life's about trade-offs, that's just how it goes in both society and in the natural world.

 

Hmmm, sorry man, I am just not buying you reasoning here.

You assume the nature of the firearms black market would remain the same if your vision is implemented, yet I don't see anything to suspect that it would. If anything I believe that market would expand and diversify in terms of participants. I think it would be easier to buy firearms on that market.

That said, when it comes to private sales between two individuals, I don't see how it is any of the government's business what is exchanged between them.

 

You have a good counter to the first notion you bring up about the black market changing. I just respectfully disagree, and rather want to test those boundaries to see if your prediction is true or not in reality rather than in the hypothetical, at that point then just reverse the policy after a few decades if it turns out you're correct.

As for the sale of guns between individuals, it matters because friends keep secrets from each other, otherwise we wouldn't hear people going:

"My god, I didn't think they were capable of doing that, I've known them for __ amount of years".


Plus leaving the individual purchase loophole open, defeats the purpose of back round checks because it would allow for straw purchases. Not all individual-to-individual purchases are gonna be "close friends" either.

Also government, and the public, should be mandating that guns recognize their owner and can only be fired by their owner. That would also appeal to gun manufacturers because that would mean a new gun must be purchased for each individual in a pro-gun household and could potentially reduce household-gun accidents.

--

I'm repeating myself now, I already said all this on the thread about guns that was made in response to Sandy Hook.

 

The same question could be asked of the Left, and might even be an excellent choice for a thread topic, IF it was maintained constantly by an unbiased moderator.

 

First of all, I will state for all the people ignorant of the process in procuring a firearm from a dealer.. there are already federal background checks in place. Look it up. NICS. National Instant Check System.

It's probably because he's black. Under this administration, if anyone of a minority group is scrutinized, that person is automatically 'racist'. And besides, only white conservatives are the problem in America according to the Obama drones.

No problem calling for government usurpation of our natural rights, yet you refuse to call for government accountability in telling the nearby units to stand down in Benghazi. You absolutely disgust me. I am glad I don't ever have to see you in person.

No, you just don't want to open your mind to anything that runs in the face of your liberal faith.

I could ask the same thing about the left.

I'm conservative in terms of the Constitution, not a republican. But what I am for is liberty, self-ownership, and voluntary exchange.

What are you for?

 

The NICS is a joke in terms of how the checks work and extrapolate the data. What I am suggesting is more thorough and detailed and would be linked to mental health reform so that token gun reform can't just be pushed by the left.

 

While I agree those background checks would be non invasive, the government is soo far in the opposite direction, it makes background checks look silly. I know this young girl (23 years old) and she went to prison for having a personal 1 gr bag of heroine. Not only did she serve 2 years in prison with rapist and murders, she also was not allowed to purchase a gun. I think it's dumb; I do think you're way would be a little better, but I don't see the government doing that. If anything they'd create a gun-control agency, which will be just as damaging on our Second Amendment as the TSA is to the Fourth.

Government is flawed because it's fraud. The companies who control our government, make the choices. This is why, (I believe) politicians are pushing for gun control. But I believe, (as you said) that gun control doesn't effect violence. I think this has been proven in places that already have gun control. Plus, as I said in many other instances; I'm actually insulted at Obama's push for it- Sickened Frankly! The reason being, is he supplies Heavy Machine Guns, to savages like Mexican drug cartels and the "Free Syrian Army," who has links with Al Qaeda, and have claimed to be Gihadist. Americans should be armed because our government uses lethal force worldwide, and we have alot of enemies. Perhaps even in the homeland.

 

Oh boo you, I'm no Obama lover but you can't say that all violence is his fault. That really makes no sense, liberal, conservative, apolitical. The root of all of the problems that we are discussing existed before Obama and will continue to exist after him. It is shortsighted to blame him for everything. The President, in many ways, is merely a puppet.

 

It's just politics after-all which makes the face-on-face anger frustrated in the heart that would otherwise just be a proud American worried about his virtues as a (potential) loyal customer.