Four kids, two adults shot dead near Houston

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: Daedalus

See the post above yours? THAT'S libelous.

So maybe warn your friend there about libel instead of me, and lets get back on topic.

Ohhhhh, I'm scared now.

Truth hurts.

originally posted by: Daedalus


at what point, will you be happy?

Never.

Progressives are all about control. The Anti-2nd thing is just their flavor of the year.

A horrible tragedy to be sure.

It is unfortunate that some people feel the need to act out like this.

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: Daedalus

See the post above yours? THAT'S libelous.

So maybe warn your friend there about libel instead of me, and lets get back on topic.

Also, don't you have to have standing for that to happen?

Seeing as that this is a Forum, where members are anonymous, who is it that you can claim any damages?

a reply to: HauntWok

In addition to this.

Since you have equated to people like myself, and others, that wish for no further restrictions of our 2nd Amendment Right to people that have a blood-lust, the same can be applied to you. Because after all......you don't want to BAN firearms, you just want restrictions placed.
And, since you will allow firearms to continue within our society, you will further the actions of "crazy people" to commit murders with firearms.

Their blood is on your hands as well.

a reply to: macman

Ask your pal, he brought it up.

a reply to: HauntWok

i brought it up as a friendly courtesy to you....you immediately went on the defensive, and tried to deflect...

i guess next time, i'll just let you dig yourself into a hole...

a reply to: macman

Remember, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

So, banning guns isn't the issue, it's banning people that shouldn't have access to guns from getting them legally.

a reply to: HauntWok

then perhaps you'd care to take a stab at replying to this post?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Daedalus

It wouldn't be me, it would be a licensed psychologist that would make that determination.

I think I've said this a few times now.

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: Daedalus

It wouldn't be me, it would be a licensed psychologist that would make that determination.

I think I've said this a few times now.

Psychologists don't have a clinical term for crazy or insane. The courts do that.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Psychologists don't have a clinical term for crazy or insane. The courts do that.

Is this how this stupid conversation is going to go? I'll post something than you three are going to jump in cherry picking and being overtly disingenuous about the subject?

Let me ask a question

Really, let me ask one

Do you think that people who have serious mental illnesses, and people who have had documented cases of violent behavior should have access to a firearm? If you do why? If you don't what do you think that we should do to make sure that they don't have access to firearms?

Really, this has been my question this entire time, however, you three have decided that it was a free for all against me personally instead of the topic.

I mean insults like calling me a girl? Really? But on this site I'm not surprised that sort of Ad hominem would be allowed. (hell, if I do it, they hit me with multiple warnings for a single post)

But c'mon tough guys, really use those brains, let me know the answer to these questions. Do you think that people with serious mental illnesses should have access to firearms. And if you don't how do you propose that we keep legal firearms out of their hands?

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Psychologists don't have a clinical term for crazy or insane. The courts do that.

Is this how this stupid conversation is going to go? I'll post something than you three are going to jump in cherry picking and being overtly disingenuous about the subject?

Let me ask a question

Really, let me ask one

You've asked many during this thread, but ok one more is fine with me.

Do you think that people who have serious mental illnesses, and people who have had documented cases of violent behavior should have access to a firearm? If you do why? If you don't what do you think that we should do to make sure that they don't have access to firearms?

Well that's really 3 questions, 4 if you consider the fact you grouped two questions into one, but whatever I'll answer them anyways. I'm going to separate your first question into two questions since they aren't the same thing.

Do you think that people who have serious mental illnesses should have access to a firearm?

Yes, if they don't harm or haven't harmed anyone with them then I see no problem with them having one.

Do you think people who have had documented cases of violent behavior should have access to a firearm?

No, but then again this is already a law on the books. Felons aren't allowed to own or operate firearms. They can be charged for JUST stepping onto a gun range (happened to a friend of mine).

If you don't what do you think that we should do to make sure that they don't have access to firearms?

I answered this question very early in the thread, but I'll do it again. Education. Educate children how to properly use and handle firearms. Educate them to use methods OTHER than violence to solve their problems. Educate children on the consequences of their actions. This would be in addition to the existing statutes and regulations on the books to keep firearms out of the hands of the wrong people.

Really, this has been my question this entire time, however, you three have decided that it was a free for all against me personally instead of the topic.

I never ONCE attacked you verbally. I've always addressed the issue you've been harping about and have had to CONSTANTLY deflect your hyperbole about what we are arguing for.

I mean insults like calling me a girl? Really? But on this site I'm not surprised that sort of Ad hominem would be allowed. (hell, if I do it, they hit me with multiple warnings for a single post)

I called you a girl? When? Also, you get infracted when someone reports your T&C violation. The mods can't be everywhere. If someone used an ad hominem attack against you, report them. Don't complain about it.

But then again I wonder why you get to complain about others ad homineming you, but it is perfectly ok for you to say things like that we are celebrating the death of the family in the OP or that the guy who murdered his family was acting in self-defense. Don't speak for us and maybe you won't get called names in retalliation. Turn-about is fair game. If you are going to resort to fallacious arguments, don't complain when others do the same to derail you.

But c'mon tough guys, really use those brains, let me know the answer to these questions. Do you think that people with serious mental illnesses should have access to firearms. And if you don't how do you propose that we keep legal firearms out of their hands?

Like I said earlier in the thread there are MANY people living with what you would call serious mental illnesses that function JUST fine in society and don't hurt others with their actions because of the illnesses. There are also people with light mental illnesses that DO act out against others. That's why I told you to define crazy. It can't be done, just because you can point to one person who may be unstable, I can point to someone else who IS stable and mentally worse at the same time. But YOUR solution would punish BOTH of those people. That is the wrong answer.

a reply to: HauntWok

So Eugenics then.
We should be removing "certain" people from society.
NOW we are getting to the heart of you.

Because there is never a way to 'ban' people from obtaining firearms. The criminals will always have them, regardless of what LAW you wish to enact to restrict lawful citizens.

So again, since you don't want to BAN all firearms, the blood of the innocent children is all over your hands.

a reply to: HauntWok

There is no provision within the 2nd to disallow people from ownership.

This was placed into this exactly so the Govt could not deem people as unfit from ownership, thus allowing the Govt to circumvent the method for the People to take the country back.

Look, it is clear that you understand this, you just don't accept it and thus we have your verbal gymnastic semantics and twisting of meanings while omitting large portions of laws/statues to show some distorted support for your Progressive stance.

a reply to: macman

Eugenics?

Sorry, no.

I don't want the mentality ill taken out of the gene pool, i just don't think they should have access to firearms.

If it were up to me, anyone who thought that the second amendment was written so that they had carte Blanche to kill constitutionally elected people would never be allowed within a hundred feet of a gun.

If it were up to me, anyone who said we should execute illegal immigrants would never be allowed near a gun.

But it's not up to me.

originally posted by: HauntWok

Eugenics?

Sorry, no.

Your the one wanting to place bans on certain people.
The underlining issue is Eugenics on your part.

originally posted by: HauntWok
I don't want the mentality ill taken out of the gene pool, i just don't think they should have access to firearms.

There is no other way to do this. People will always be able to obtain firearms.
By your logic, you must either remove ALL firearms, or people you deem unfit to own firearms.

originally posted by: HauntWok
If it were up to me, anyone who thought that the second amendment was written so that they had carte Blanche to kill constitutionally elected people would never be allowed within a hundred feet of a gun.

Please, go and read some history.

originally posted by: HauntWok
If it were up to me, anyone who said we should execute illegal immigrants would never be allowed near a gun.

And NOW we have more BS.
When did anyone within this thread state this?
I suppose the next thing will be Racist or Bigot used.

Your predictable. Easily predictable.

originally posted by: HauntWok
But it's not up to me.

And thank God to that.

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is acceptable? More people die in this country every year due to guns than the event that kicked off two wars?

And it's acceptable? How high does the body count have to get?

There were less people that fought tooth and nail, claiming our president was born in KENYA and it was enough so that legislation was proposed to force candidates to prove where they were born.

But three times as many people die, actually die a year from gun violence and it's acceptable?

And most all of them were murdered in a gun free zone?

The truth, the whole truth, and NOTHING but the TRUTH?

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The decrease in gun violence certainly isn't due to the pro gun crowd.

It's due to the efforts of sensible gun laws, better enforcement, better education, and people who are tired of being shouted down by Alex Jones types.

Do you know what caused the increase in gun sales?

Obama being elected president. Paranoid nutburgers that actually thought he was going to ban guns.

Honestly the decrease is directly related to the gun culture in respect that they are getting more CCW permits.

The increase in gun sale is in direct proportion to the increase in the new Knock out games being plaid where young black thugs try to knock out a white guy or gal with just one hit to the head.

For every action there will be an equal but opposite reaction.

Obama is a threat to our bill of rights and that is why the shelves are empty at the gun stores across America.

a reply to: waltwillis

The incident in the op was Texas.

Texas is a gun free zone now?