It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Four kids, two adults shot dead near Houston

page: 22
20
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: waltwillis

The incident in the op was Texas.

Texas is a gun free zone now?


Domestic violence is NOT the same and much of the murders in domestic killing is not done with a gun.

If you were to remove the gun in that type of case you would still see no reduction in the murder rate!

I thought you wanted to reduce the murder rate?

You said you were not trying to take away our gun rights?

Did you change you mind?




posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: waltwillis

The incident in the op was Texas.

Texas is a gun free zone now?



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

Please include all the words next time!



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 03:55 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

how convenient....

let's leave our freedom in the hands of some government "doctor", and hope he's honest, and doesn't try to screw us out of too much of it...

oh yeah, because they're SO honest.....really sensible idea, man..




posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 04:01 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

i take it by "serious mental illness", you mean something like the stereotypical violent psycho killer you see on tv....just violent, without morals, and just loves killing people.....

of course nobody thinks anyone like that should have a gun...but it's not because guns are bad, it's because the person is bad....it's kinda like why would you hand someone a bat, or a brick, if you KNOW for a FACT that they're gonna hit you with it?

of course we don't want people we know would do harm to innocents, having access to firearms...and there are plenty of laws to keep those kinds of people from legally purchasing one....but that's not going to stop them from using knives, or hammers, or axes, or whatever else...it also won't stop them from buying a gun off the black market....so this makes ANY new law that could be devised, completely irrelevant.

there is no way to do what you want....even a gun ban wouldn't do it...

i once again, remind you of the period of time after the volstead act was passed, until it was repealed....if people want something, they'll get it..
edit on 7-16-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 04:07 AM
link   

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.


which, again, leads to the very important important question...."how do you define mentally ill?"

what people would fit into this critera, in your mind? you can't go slinging around the terms "crazy", "insane", and "mentally ill", without having some kind of sense of what they mean....so let's hear it...



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.


so then the german officers that plotted, and attempted to kill hitler, and his staff, were bad people, and undeserving of a gun? hitler was elected as well, was he not?

being "elected" doesn't mean anything, if you're not doing the right things....why do you have such a submissive attitude toward government?



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


because protecting our borders against foreign invaders is just SO evil... -rolls eyes-

try to stay on topic, yes?



But it's not up to me.


and that fact alone, is ALMOST enough to make me believe in a god....

if it were up to you, anyone who has a thought you disagree with, would be disbarred the use of arms..regardless of how safe and responsible they were with them...so sad when one would let personal bias and opinion, interfere with policy..
edit on 7-16-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 04:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus

I said independent psychologist, but, hey, believe what you want. It's an idea.

All I'm looking for its to try and keep people with serious mental illnesses from legally buying firearms.

You know, try and keep these guns of of the hands of people that believe Americans have the right to execute illegals for crossing the boarder after a kangaroo court sham trial.

You know, crazy things like that. Someone would have to be pretty unbalanced to think that murdering women and children is justifiable because they crossed a boarder the wrong way.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 05:44 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

and you'd do well to avoid trying to derail the thread by trying to drag other members through the mud, for twisted versions of things said in other threads, because you don't have anything even resembling a solid argument, to defend your position..

you'd also do well to not deflect, instead of actually answering the questions put to you.

ya' know...if you actually want intelligent discourse, instead of hyperbole, and mud-slinging..



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Daedalus


you'd also do well to not deflect, instead of actually answering the questions put to you.


Yeah right.

The amount of deflection, omission and avoidance of addressing questions posed to him would make Bill Clinton proud.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: th2356

i have something to say about your incorrect assessment that mindless paranoia and aggression are the hallmarks of American gun culture.


To begin with mindless people would likely be prohibited from purchasing a gun.
And isn't that somewhat mindless on your part, to suggest that the gun culture is mindless?

Paranoid personality disorder has as the defining symptoms, predominantly hallucinations, and most frequently auditory.
These auditory hallucinations generally fit the theme of thought intrusions and ideas of reference, meaning that the paranoid person is usually struggling to prevent the broadcaster of these thoughts from taking over control of the paranoid persons will.

That being said, I again reflect back to you that your suggestion that the gun culture is paranoid is definitely quite mindless on your part.

Next you portray the gun culture in America as aggressive. A mindless comparison I might add if I may be so bold. If the people who possess guns in America were aggressive then there probably would not be any anti gun people left to whine and bellyache about others who possess guns. There would probably have been massive conversions from the anti gun crowd to the pro gun crowd, if for nothing else but self preservation.

You smell like Piers Morgan, 2356, with your adenoids pointing to the tree tops and your disdainful opinion dripping out of the end of your probiscus onto the lesser peons below your circumstance..

I find your entire line of reasoning to be mindless dribble that shall be flung into the trash heap post haste.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

Border = a boundary.

Boarder = a tenant.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

I'm still waiting for a definition of what crazy, insane, or severe mental illness means. Something that we can definitively nail down as THIS is the line we cross and they are considered crazy. Please inform us. You keep using these words, well there needs to be a precise definition for them in order to determine if they can or cannot own a firearm. You can't leave the definition up to psychologists because they don't use the terms crazy or insane. Severe mental illness to them is also ill defined. So what is the definition of these words?



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 08:27 AM
link   
list of definitions of persons and reasons why purchasing a firearm is prohibited.

FORM 4473

Question 11.b. - 11.l. Definition of Prohibited Person:
Generally, 18
U.S.C. § 922 prohibits the shipment, transportation, receipt, or possession in
or affecting interstate commerce of a firearm by one who: has been convicted
of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; has been convicted of a felony,
or any other crime, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
(this does not include State misdemeanors punishable by imprisonment of
two years or less)
; is a fugitive from justice; is an unlawful user of, or
addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any
other controlled substance; has been adjudicated mentally defective or has
been committed to a mental institution; has been discharged from the Armed
Forces under dishonorable conditions; has renounced his or her U.S.
citizenship; is an alien illegally in the United States or an alien admitted to the
United States under a nonimmigrant visa; or is subject to certain restraining
orders. Furthermore, section 922 prohibits the shipment, transportation, or
receipt in or affecting interstate commerce of a firearm by one who is under
indictment or information for a felony, or any other crime, punishable by
imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
Question 11.b. Under Indictment or Information or Convicted in any
Court:
An indictment, information, or conviction in any Federal, State, or
local court. An information is a formal accusation of a crime verified by a
prosecutor.
EXCEPTION to 11.c. and 11.i.
:
A person who has been convicted of a
felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could have imprisoned the
person for more than one year, or who has been convicted of a misdemeanor
crime of domestic violence, is not prohibited from purchasing, receiving, or
possessing a firearm if: (1) under the law of ATF Form 4473 (5300.9) Part I
Revised April 2012
the jurisdiction where the con
viction
occurred, the person has been pardoned, the
conviction has been expunged or set aside, or
the person has had their civil rights
(the right to vote, sit on a jury, and hold public office)
taken away and later
restored AND (2) the person is not prohibited by the law of the jurisdiction where
the conviction occurred from receiving or possessing firearms. Persons
subject to
this exception should answer
“no”
to 11.c. or 11.i., as applicable.
Question 11.f. Adjudicated Mentally Defective:
A determination by a court,
board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked
subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
(1) is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract
or manage his own affairs. This term shall include: (1) a finding of insanity by a
court in a criminal case; and (2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or
found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility.
Committed to a Mental Institution:
A formal commitment of a person to a
mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The
term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term
includes commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes
commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a
person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental
institution. Please also refer to Question 11.c. for the definition of a prohibited
person.
EXCEPTION to 11. f. NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007
:
A person
who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental
institution is not prohibited if: (1) the person was adjudicated or committed
by a
department or agency of the Federal Government
, such as the United States
Department of Veteran’s Affairs (“VA”) (as opposed to a State court, State board,
or other lawful State authority);
and (2) either: (a) the person’s adjudication or
commitment for mental incompetency was set-aside or expunged by the
adjudicating/committing agency; (b) the person has been fully released or
discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring by the
agency; or (c) the person was found by the agency to no longer suffer from the
mental health condition that served as the basis of the initial adjudication.
Persons who fit this exception should answer “no” to Item 11.f.
This
exception does not apply to any person who was adjudicated to be not guilty by
reason of insanity, or based on lack of mental responsibility, or found incompe-
tent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice.
Question 11.h. Definition of Restraining Order:
Under 18 U.S.C. § 922,
firearms may not be sold to or received by persons subject to a
court order that:
(A) was issued after a hearing which the person received
actual notice of and had
an opportunity to participate in; (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking,
or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate part
ner or person, or
engaging in other conduct that would place an
intimate partner in reasonable
fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C)(i)
includes a f
inding that
such person represents a credible threat to
the physical safety of
such
intimate
partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use,
or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that
would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury. An
“intimate partner” of
a person is: the
spouse
or former spouse
of the person, the p
arent of a
child of
the person, or an individual who cohabit
ates or cohabit
ating with
the person.
Question 11.i. Definition of Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence:
A
Federal, State, local, or tribal offense that is a misdemeanor under Federal, State,
or tribal law and has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or
the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse,
parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a
child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with, or has cohabited with
the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to
a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim. The term includes all misdemeanors
that have as an element the use or attempted use of physical force or the
threatened use of a deadly weapon
(e.g., assault and battery)
, if the offense is
committed by one of the defined parties.
(See Exception to 11.c. and 11.i.)
A
person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence also
is not prohibited unless: (1) the person was represented by a lawyer or gave up
the right to a lawyer; or (2) if the person was entitled to a jury, was tried by a jury,
or gave up the right to a jury trial. Persons subject to this exception should
answer
“no”
t



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Pot smokers from Colorado and Oregon are prohibited from purchasing a firearm,
that is unless they lie and say that they do not use pot.

It will not be too long, and obama is trying to do this through EO, to have any and all medical records accessed by the ICBC. That plus military records to further broaden and prohibit larger and larger numbers of people from owning and purchasing a firearm.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: spirited75

First I've heard about pot smokers not being able to buy guns. Can you prove it? How do they even enforce that? Drug test you before you buy a gun?
edit on 16-7-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

go read the post immediately above the one you are commenting on



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 08:39 AM
link   
verbellum.wordpress.com...


edit on 16/7/2014 by spirited75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: spirited75

OK and? The form has this question:

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?


But I see the word, unlawful, being used there. In Washington and Colorado it isn't unlawful to use marijuana. Also a form that asks if you use it or not isn't evidence that it is specifically being denied to these people. Where is the evidence coming from CO and WA that gun purchasers who use marijuana are SPECIFICALLY being denied a gun because they smoke pot?
edit on 16-7-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 08:57 AM
link   
this is horrible...



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

form 4473 is a federal form.

superceds oregon and colorado laws i bet.

what do you think??

Marijuana is a retardant.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: Krazysh0t

form 4473 is a federal form.

superceds oregon and colorado laws i bet.

what do you think??

Marijuana is a retardant.


Very good point Krazysh0t, I never thought of that.

However, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights both supercede form 4473. The Constitution does not give congress or the president authority to make laws against marijuana or firearms.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join