Four kids, two adults shot dead near Houston

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Now I'm all for more education, many studies prove that the more educated a person is, the less likely they are to commit violent crime.

Yes, education is a good direction to head in. Violence reduction education and gun safety education, just to name a few.

I also think that mental health evaluation should be mandatory for gun owners.

Unfortunately I have a hard time following this. First off, mental illnesses are hard to spot, can be attributed to most anyone, and the number of them grow every time a new DSM is printed. Also this approach assumes that someone is guilty before they have done anything. There are FAR more people living just fine with mental illnesses that don't go out and murder people as soon as they pick up a gun than there are that do that.

a reply to: HauntWok

1 can understand your energy you feel that if less guns were present less gun crimes may occur. Its logical to assess these thing in such a way if all potential ignorance actors carried the same mindstates. But they don't so this makes it hard for the outcomes you may visualize to happen with less guns present. Its a heartfelt aspect in some human genetics to protect w/ firearms as its always been since throwing spears to making bows (not with all) however.

So when some are challenged to have their firearms taken and they know there are massive amounts of illegal weapons out there potentially in the hands of those labeled criminals or criminally insane the give them up factor is not a factor and its understood why.

This ignorance and the amount of rage it took to kill children as well as family members may not of been preventable even if he had no firearm as it seems he was destined to inflict malice and harm on others but then found that bit of sanity when death was approaching him and he gave up before being returned where his energy could be more dealt with outside these living boundaries. And his motivation would of been demonstrated in and with some other form of weapon.

Its basically a tuff situation to find a point of balance. The human nature encourages protection but there are some mentally too unstable to carry weapons to do so but get them.

So do you take them? keep them? or place hidden air/ground oriented drones that can respond to attackers immediately strategically placed?

a reply to: HauntWok

Another article of instantaneus violence which directly avoids the elephant in the room: WHAT PRESCRIPTION POISON WAS HE ON? We should make it a game....
A. SSRI
B. Downer
C. Sleeping Aid

America needs prescription drug control! We must take the drugs out of the cabinets of previously nonviolent offenders and take back our streets. If not now, when?

a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

optimally one would start with education. Unfortunately the same people that are pro gun are often anti education. They want to slash education budgets.

It goes with their overall plan.

originally posted by: HauntWok

I don't know, maybe keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill might help.

And how to you do that?
Without violating the rights of people here in the US.

a reply to: macman

Simple, follow the 2nd amendment. after all, a well REGULATED militia IS necessary for a free state.

And of course, Congress under the constitution has the authority to regulate the militias.

so, part of that regulation can be mental health evaluations before the purchase of a firearm.

You honestly sound like a MDA talking point. Have you ever stopped to actually think through this crap you post.

originally posted by: HauntWok

No, there have been countless threads where the pro gun crowd has shouted down the reasonable gun control crowd.

This BS idea of "reasonable" can be resolved by amending the 2nd.
Since "reasonable" is subjective, who gets to decide your holy grail of "reasonable"? That doesn't violate our 2nd Amendment Rights.

originally posted by: HauntWok
They parade out the second half of the second amendment, they spout off the declaration of independence as their personal licence to kill.

Dude, you clearly have no clue.
How does the DoI come into play?
And what is this "second half" thing you speak of?

And where on God's Green earth has anyone, except you and every other talking point parrot stated this give people a license to kill?

originally posted by: HauntWok
All we are asking for its reasonable gun control legislation.

Let's see these "reasonable" things, that don't violate rights.

originally posted by: HauntWok
And we get nothing but push back from the pro gun crowd.

Because everything proposed violates the rights outlined already.

originally posted by: HauntWok
So yeah, this horrible crime is your victory pro gun crowd. Why don't y'all go celebrate?

Honestly, you really have nothing else other then MDA/Brady Camp drivel.

What a horrible tragedy. How anyone could kill their own kids is simply uncomprehendable to me.

Btw OP this is probably the most despicable example of "not letting a good tragedy go to waste" that I've ever seen. Congratulations.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Firearms education was drummed out of the public a while back, as Progressives were too scared of things that go boom.

SO much for education.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Firearms education was drummed out of the public a while back, as Progressives were too scared of things that go boom.

SO much for education.

I know right. The things that actually make SENSE to fix the problem aren't viable in their eyes, but using totalitarian tactics to impose their will is certainly fair game. You know, this is just me, but the way I see it humans don't like being told what to do and will do things more willingly when they WANT to do it without being told to do it. The only way to achieve that is through education.

a reply to: HauntWok

Now that is the best misinterpretation of the 2nd I have ever read.

When the idea of the 2nd was implemented, it was put in place to be there, not only to provide protection and security, but to be the spearhead of the Peoples ability to retake an out of control Govt.

SO, what you propose is that the same group charged with the above, falls under the control of that same Govt.

You really haven't thought any of this through.

In addition, I LOVE it when you and other Progressives leave out that last half of the 2nd.
Can you please tell me what the missing 4 words are again????

a reply to: macman

Really? I imagine you've never read article I section 8 clause 16 before have you?

press-pubs.uchicago.edu...

I'm not for playing games. now you are engaging in hyperbole, and circular logic falicy.

originally posted by: macman

Can you please tell me what the missing 4 words are again????

Let me answer that question since HauntWok just dodged the question in the post below yours

"...shall not be infringed".

a reply to: HauntWok

as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively,

When in the service of the US, they are under the control of Congress.


Yet again, Progressives omit portions of a law to gratify their own take on something.


And if we are working under your failed logic,

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing

, means that Congress has failed to provide for the Militia.


And again, what are those 4 words at the end of the 2nd?

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: beezzer

But its all legal as long as you have a gun. inalienable rights and all. isn't the pro gun crowd so happy about all these acts of pro active self defense?

can't have any gun laws at all cause that would be against the holy scriptures of the second amendment.

Did you know that he was a screaming left winged liberal that voted for Obama?

Was he a licensed concealed carry holder and past the proper training requirements?

Was he taking his meds?

If you think these questions are way too hard to answer then just wait for the spin from the media that tends to tell what the P.C. folks want them to tell.

a reply to: HauntWok

And I will break it down even further.

When in the service of the US, Congress holds control.

But, when not, the States hold control of the Militia, as outlined by this statute.

Seeing as that the Federal Govt has not exerted control over the Militias in some time now, and they have failed to provide the required training and supplies, the control falls "respectively" to the State of that Militia.
Seems that the States have failed with the required training and supplies also. And it further seems that the States have not exerted control over the Militias in a bit either. SO.........the control goes back to the Militia itself. You know, the People.


Good lord, this can't be that difficult to understand.

Kind of like proposing a Prayer out of the Bible as some directive for a Govt to tax people and provide welfare to others.

originally posted by: Bone75
What a horrible tragedy. How anyone could kill their own kids is simply uncomprehendable to me.

Btw OP this is probably the most despicable example of "not letting a good tragedy go to waste" that I've ever seen. Congratulations.

Very well said!

There was a case in NC many years ago where a father burned his kids in the family van and another case where a mother drove her kids into a lake to drown.

Why is it we only hear the drums of despair when a crazy person murders with a gun?

A blunt instrument is the number one weapon of choice to commit murder in this country.

I smell a hidden agenda and a rat near by!

THINK!

If a law is passed that says "all guns are now and forever forbidden and must be turned in to your local police station, just how many do you think the crazy and criminals would comply with the new law?

My guess is...Very few as they are criminals and guess what?


THEY DO NOT OBEY THE LAW!

Now what you have just done is disarm the people that will now have no way to defend themselves from the crazy bad guys.

Good job guy!

Your should run for office and share you wisdom with the world...

a reply to: macman

you simply don't have the reading comprehension skills to fully understand. I blame the education system.

I was asked under what authority did the government ( state or federal) have to require psychological assessment of firearms owners.

I provided that proof that the government does indeed have that authority.

Spring,tx use to be the sticks, now it is a suburb of Houston.

Out here in the rural areas of Texas every one on a ranch has firearms. And in the small town around, at least in my area, there are seldom firearm murders. A two in my county in 10 or 12 years and both were by people who weren't locals.

It's not the firearm, it's a mental case behind it.