Four kids, two adults shot dead near Houston

a reply to: cavtrooper7

I haven't said a thing about nasty black guns or 30 round clips. The reason is that inanimate objects aren't the problem. It's the maniac.

You are right though the state of mental health care in this country does need improvement.

a reply to: waltwillis

That's exactly it. You can regulate guns, but people will still snap, and criminals don't give a damn about the laws.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm not suggesting a magic bullet. I'm suggesting policies in places that over time would reduce the instances of these shootings.

The idea of "we cannot completely stop all shootings so don't try" is a failure.

a reply to: HauntWok
Media is also amplifying fear for politics as well.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Yes it does.

Look at it this way, rape is illegal, but rapes still occur, but you wouldn't just legalize rape would you? Can't stop it, why try?

Murder is illegal, but murder still happens, better legalize murder, can't stop it, why try?

Again, guns aren't the problem, it's the person behind the gun.

a reply to: HauntWok
WHY Because they won't kill them,which is what should be done with violent criminals ,and pedophiles...especially pedophiles.
ONLY a good trigger stops a bad trigger..unless the run out of rounds or surrender.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Ok, only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun talking point.

Do you have a gun? If so, how many bad guys with guns have you stopped? Do you patrol gang neighborhoods? Wouldn't you consider yourself a good guy?

Seems to me that talking point would infer that it's the duty of law abiding gun owners to seek out the bad guys with guns in order to stop them and thereby make neighborhoods safer.

a reply to: HauntWok
NOPE I am not qualified to kill without orders from authority...at this time. NOR is ANYONE allowed to track and kill...I personally. used to like goading and beating people in bars but that was rude and severe intoxication.
OF COURSE I HAVE GUNS,I'M A SCOUT.
I have no RECORD of lawlessness and my figging brother is a detective in Elko. OI am Chaos he is order.


I am NOT a good guy by nature,you SEE that correctly.I stay reclusive as a result.

originally posted by: HauntWok
I don't think the cost is that prohibitive. It's merely covering the cost of enforcing existing gun laws and to help offset the cost to the taxpayer of these horrific events.

And what if there is someone who cannot afford it regardless of how inexpensive you may think the cost? They are then disenfranchised. This would not be acceptable.

I don't see anywhere in the constitution or the second amendment where the public has to pick up the cost of these tragedies carried out by the Militia.

This is a straw man. Where in the Constitution does it state that the taxpayer should pay for any other accidental or intentional death by means other than firearms?

Insurance would defer that cost among the Militia, thereby making it reasonable.

Again, if the person could not afford it how do they then get a firearm? This is a poll tax in another guise.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I disagree, this is well within congresses purview to discipline the militia as outlined on article I section 8 of the united states constitution.

I don't think this is prohibitive, and if it is, perhaps the gun owner has more important things to think about than his arsenal of guns.

The costs of these mass shootings are enormous, and a majority of these are by leople that have purchased firearms legally.

And is not a tax as the money is specifically used for gun crime prevention, victim compensation, awareness and education.

Why not this instead of a gun ban, which as the war on drugs has taught is does not work. It keeps all firearms legal and readily available, and helps make law abiding gun owners (the militia) accountable for members of their ranks.

It keeps all firearms legal and readily available, and helps make law abiding gun owners (the militia) accountable for members of their ranks.

OK. Your are then are also responsible for the actions of any 'group' in which you participate.

Own a lock? You are responsible for break ins. A car? For any accident. A bath tub? Any child that drowns or is murdered in one. A knife? Anyone who get stabbed. Go to a bar? Drunk drivers. Married or in a relationship? Domestic disputes. The list can get quite long...

a reply to: roadgravel

One of your examples is actually true.

The car... have to have insurance to drive a car. That insurance not only covers you, but other drivers too.

Of course none of your examples has a constitutional amendment behind it. The reason for that amendment is for the national defense of our country.

We aren't supposed to have a continuously standing army, this is why the military budget is voted on every two years, the militia is supposed to be responsible for national defense.

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I disagree, this is well within congresses purview to discipline the militia as outlined on article I section 8 of the united states constitution.

ART. 1 SEC. 8 speaks about organizing, training and disciplining the militia.

a reply to: spirited75

You are correct sir, and nothing disciplines faster than group responsibility.

It sure as hell would make gun owners want to make damn sure their insurance rates don't go up because one of their own went nutty.

a reply to: HauntWok

and that organizing training and disciplining is only to repel insurrection or foreign invasion.

so either you do not comprehend the meaning of the words, phrases in the constitution or you are deliberately misconstruing them under the guise of progressive interpretation and my inclination is that you are doing the latter, which in my perspective means you are lying about the meanings to others.

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere

originally posted by: HauntWok

Still need less gun laws? I guess this guy thought so too.

Write one that would have prevented this.

The guy not having a gun because they're rarer than hen's teeth?

originally posted by: hillbilly4rent
a reply to: HauntWok

No law of any kind is going to stop one from murdering another.

How about stop them from killing 6 within a few minutes inside their own home?

Given two 2 adults there and the kids able to run, the neighbours being there to help or provide refuge.

Kinda hard to pull off murdering your entire family during supper without a firearm.

That's because guns are a tool for efficient killing at a distance. And you can't outrun bullets.

But hey! maybe if they had one of them ballistic blankets originally designed for protecting ya kids during a tornado (as if the windspeeds in a tornado would not blow the blanket away or at least keep it fluttering about, useless).

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: HauntWok

Monroe County Marine Killed In Watercraft Accident

www.monroenews.com...

When are we going to ban jet ski's?

Kinda hard to kill 6 people over supper inside their home, during summer, with a jet ski.

Wouldn't you think?

originally posted by: HauntWok
The reason for that amendment is for the national defense of our country.

We aren't supposed to have a continuously standing army, this is why the military budget is voted on every two years, the militia is supposed to be responsible for national defense.

you obviously do not understand the constitution or are deliberately lying about it.

a reply to: Chiftel
the nut who did these killings had several contacts with law enforcement.
law enforcement had opportunities to lock him up and choose to not do that.
you from Bucharest Romania?