America's Gun Violence

1531532534536537558

Comments

  • bbiggsbbiggs Posts: 4,316
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 12,383
    Hours long shootout with 6 cops shot and Fox News is highlighting the role of drugs in the shootout! 
    Incredible.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 17,064
    edited August 2019
    rgambs said:
    Hours long shootout with 6 cops shot and Fox News is highlighting the role of drugs in the shootout! 
    Incredible.
    well it was a narcotics warrant mission.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/08/14/multiple-police-officers-wounded-active-philadelphia-shootout-officials-say/

    Post edited by mickeyrat on
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 22,210
    rgambs said:
    Hours long shootout with 6 cops shot and Fox News is highlighting the role of drugs in the shootout! 
    Incredible.
    I was watching FOX business to see what they thought of the stock market and the pretty lady on there was horrible.  Really pandering to the audience.  They really know how to turn the screws on a situation.
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 22,210
    ^^^^^^^^ Too many characters in the quote feature. My response:

    I asked a very basic yes or no question, initially. You danced around and eventually answered. Your response is part of why nothing changes and nothing can be done. When you have the time, would you mind answering about whether the accused should undergo a mental health evaluation?
    No, because I'm not a psychiatrist, psychologist or mental health expert.

    I didn't dance around shit.  I flat out told you he was still a responsible gun owner.  YOU danced around and kept digging and asking other questions yet I still answered the same yes.  
    So you answered no because you're not a mental health professional? WTF? That's why you send them to a mental health expert or a panel of them. Seems you're okay with a person who stockpiled weapons and ammunition and made online threats, inclusive of to federal law enforcement officers, resulting in arrest, and you don't think they should be subject to a mental health evaluation? Is that right?
    I am not an expert in mental health so why on earth would I recommend or think that he should?

     I do believe how the law works is that a person does go to evaluation to make sure they are fit for trial and does see a behavioral expert?

    Is there a part of that you want changed?

    You are asking me about what the law should do and dictate but the law is already there.  It sounds like you want mental health questions factored in for everyone that owns a gun?  Is that what you are getting at? 
    I don't believe the mental health and behavioral evaluation(s) are part of the process, unless its a defense request in a potential mental illness/insanity defense. As a matter of intake? Perhaps a cursory, "have you ever harmed yourself?" "Are you suicidal?" I think anyone who stockpiles a large number of weapons and ammo, has the FBI investigate them and ends up being charged for threatening law enforcement, should be subject to a comprehensive mental health exam. Anyone purchasing a firearm should be required to attest, under threat of perjury, that they're of "sound mind and body" with a doctor's note from a primary care physician, and do so under renewal of license. Both would have an appeals process with the involvement of law enforcement, the medical community and a judge or judges.
    I have said before that a mental background check would be fine.  What sucks about that is when a person does get denied for a gun because he didn't pass the psych exam will perhaps follow him for the rest of their life.

    Lawsuits could follow.  By a person denied, person misdiagnosed, doctor misdiagnosing and so on.

    Back to the case.  Dude "threatened law enforcement".  Did he threaten to shoot them?  Then that's not responsible.  Did he threaten to "beat their asses"?  You could threaten law enforcement in a bunch of different ways which is why I will take the side of he was "responsible gun owner" until I hear otherwise.  I'm not jumping to conclusions and look at it through the eyes of a court.

    You can't be an irresponsible driver if you get drunk at a bar and take a cab home.  It doesn't work like that.

    We could debate this guys character all day which is what you do seem to keep concluding to.  We could start profiling people and have internet watchdogs and put steroids in the Patriot Act if that would make you feel safer but I won't and don't want that.
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 22,695
    “He threatened law enforcement.” Full stop. Method or type of threat shouldn’t be determining factor of whether he’s a “responsible” gun owner. Unbelievable to me the lengths you’ll go to to defend 2A. He was being investigated for months. It wasn’t a one off of “I’ll kick their ass.”

    Somebody you work with sends you an email or posts on Facebook that they’re going to kick your ass. You know they have multiple firearms. Do you feel threatened? Do you consider them a “responsible” gun owner?
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 22,210
    “He threatened law enforcement.” Full stop. Method or type of threat shouldn’t be determining factor of whether he’s a “responsible” gun owner. Unbelievable to me the lengths you’ll go to to defend 2A. He was being investigated for months. It wasn’t a one off of “I’ll kick their ass.”

    Somebody you work with sends you an email or posts on Facebook that they’re going to kick your ass. You know they have multiple firearms. Do you feel threatened? Do you consider them a “responsible” gun owner?
    I love these "what if" scenarios you keep coming up with and your blatant disregard for law.

    I'll defend anything I think is bullshit and you keep spinning things which I will call bullshit, sorry not sorry.

    What about this scenario? C'mon man.   Go ahead, I'm ready for the next one because I am not answering this one, it's too much...
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 22,695
    “He threatened law enforcement.” Full stop. Method or type of threat shouldn’t be determining factor of whether he’s a “responsible” gun owner. Unbelievable to me the lengths you’ll go to to defend 2A. He was being investigated for months. It wasn’t a one off of “I’ll kick their ass.”

    Somebody you work with sends you an email or posts on Facebook that they’re going to kick your ass. You know they have multiple firearms. Do you feel threatened? Do you consider them a “responsible” gun owner?
    I love these "what if" scenarios you keep coming up with and your blatant disregard for law.

    I'll defend anything I think is bullshit and you keep spinning things which I will call bullshit, sorry not sorry.

    What about this scenario? C'mon man.   Go ahead, I'm ready for the next one because I am not answering this one, it's too much...
    What’s too much is that you think someone making threats and stockpiles weapons and ammo, resulting in arrest and felony charges, is a “responsible” gun owner. Your logic and that of others who agree with you is why nothing changes.

    We can agree to disagree and that’s fine not fine. Still ain’t personal though.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 22,210
    “He threatened law enforcement.” Full stop. Method or type of threat shouldn’t be determining factor of whether he’s a “responsible” gun owner. Unbelievable to me the lengths you’ll go to to defend 2A. He was being investigated for months. It wasn’t a one off of “I’ll kick their ass.”

    Somebody you work with sends you an email or posts on Facebook that they’re going to kick your ass. You know they have multiple firearms. Do you feel threatened? Do you consider them a “responsible” gun owner?
    I love these "what if" scenarios you keep coming up with and your blatant disregard for law.

    I'll defend anything I think is bullshit and you keep spinning things which I will call bullshit, sorry not sorry.

    What about this scenario? C'mon man.   Go ahead, I'm ready for the next one because I am not answering this one, it's too much...
    What’s too much is that you think someone making threats and stockpiles weapons and ammo, resulting in arrest and felony charges, is a “responsible” gun owner. Your logic and that of others who agree with you is why nothing changes.

    We can agree to disagree and that’s fine not fine. Still ain’t personal though.
    I'm a "fringe" for certain things, I understand this.

    Stockpiling ammo thing is a joke.  It really is.  Having 10,000 rounds is not that.  1,000,000 perhaps but not 10,000.

    When I shot competitively, and I have mentioned this to you before, I shot on average 5 days a week using 200-300 rounds each day.  That's over 1000 rounds a week.  Buying 1000 rounds at a time is good but buying 10-40,000 rounds is much cheaper.
  • dudemandudeman Posts: 2,172
    Here come the "You have blood on your hands" posts.
    If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 22,695
    “He threatened law enforcement.” Full stop. Method or type of threat shouldn’t be determining factor of whether he’s a “responsible” gun owner. Unbelievable to me the lengths you’ll go to to defend 2A. He was being investigated for months. It wasn’t a one off of “I’ll kick their ass.”

    Somebody you work with sends you an email or posts on Facebook that they’re going to kick your ass. You know they have multiple firearms. Do you feel threatened? Do you consider them a “responsible” gun owner?
    I love these "what if" scenarios you keep coming up with and your blatant disregard for law.

    I'll defend anything I think is bullshit and you keep spinning things which I will call bullshit, sorry not sorry.

    What about this scenario? C'mon man.   Go ahead, I'm ready for the next one because I am not answering this one, it's too much...
    What’s too much is that you think someone making threats and stockpiles weapons and ammo, resulting in arrest and felony charges, is a “responsible” gun owner. Your logic and that of others who agree with you is why nothing changes.

    We can agree to disagree and that’s fine not fine. Still ain’t personal though.
    I'm a "fringe" for certain things, I understand this.

    Stockpiling ammo thing is a joke.  It really is.  Having 10,000 rounds is not that.  1,000,000 perhaps but not 10,000.

    When I shot competitively, and I have mentioned this to you before, I shot on average 5 days a week using 200-300 rounds each day.  That's over 1000 rounds a week.  Buying 1000 rounds at a time is good but buying 10-40,000 rounds is much cheaper.
    Did you make online threats to law enforcement?
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 22,210
    “He threatened law enforcement.” Full stop. Method or type of threat shouldn’t be determining factor of whether he’s a “responsible” gun owner. Unbelievable to me the lengths you’ll go to to defend 2A. He was being investigated for months. It wasn’t a one off of “I’ll kick their ass.”

    Somebody you work with sends you an email or posts on Facebook that they’re going to kick your ass. You know they have multiple firearms. Do you feel threatened? Do you consider them a “responsible” gun owner?
    I love these "what if" scenarios you keep coming up with and your blatant disregard for law.

    I'll defend anything I think is bullshit and you keep spinning things which I will call bullshit, sorry not sorry.

    What about this scenario? C'mon man.   Go ahead, I'm ready for the next one because I am not answering this one, it's too much...
    What’s too much is that you think someone making threats and stockpiles weapons and ammo, resulting in arrest and felony charges, is a “responsible” gun owner. Your logic and that of others who agree with you is why nothing changes.

    We can agree to disagree and that’s fine not fine. Still ain’t personal though.
    I'm a "fringe" for certain things, I understand this.

    Stockpiling ammo thing is a joke.  It really is.  Having 10,000 rounds is not that.  1,000,000 perhaps but not 10,000.

    When I shot competitively, and I have mentioned this to you before, I shot on average 5 days a week using 200-300 rounds each day.  That's over 1000 rounds a week.  Buying 1000 rounds at a time is good but buying 10-40,000 rounds is much cheaper.
    Did you make online threats to law enforcement?
    Stupid...
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 9,666
    ^^^^^^^^ Too many characters in the quote feature. My response:

    I asked a very basic yes or no question, initially. You danced around and eventually answered. Your response is part of why nothing changes and nothing can be done. When you have the time, would you mind answering about whether the accused should undergo a mental health evaluation?
    No, because I'm not a psychiatrist, psychologist or mental health expert.

    I didn't dance around shit.  I flat out told you he was still a responsible gun owner.  YOU danced around and kept digging and asking other questions yet I still answered the same yes.  
    So you answered no because you're not a mental health professional? WTF? That's why you send them to a mental health expert or a panel of them. Seems you're okay with a person who stockpiled weapons and ammunition and made online threats, inclusive of to federal law enforcement officers, resulting in arrest, and you don't think they should be subject to a mental health evaluation? Is that right?
    I am not an expert in mental health so why on earth would I recommend or think that he should?

     I do believe how the law works is that a person does go to evaluation to make sure they are fit for trial and does see a behavioral expert?

    Is there a part of that you want changed?

    You are asking me about what the law should do and dictate but the law is already there.  It sounds like you want mental health questions factored in for everyone that owns a gun?  Is that what you are getting at? 
    I don't believe the mental health and behavioral evaluation(s) are part of the process, unless its a defense request in a potential mental illness/insanity defense. As a matter of intake? Perhaps a cursory, "have you ever harmed yourself?" "Are you suicidal?" I think anyone who stockpiles a large number of weapons and ammo, has the FBI investigate them and ends up being charged for threatening law enforcement, should be subject to a comprehensive mental health exam. Anyone purchasing a firearm should be required to attest, under threat of perjury, that they're of "sound mind and body" with a doctor's note from a primary care physician, and do so under renewal of license. Both would have an appeals process with the involvement of law enforcement, the medical community and a judge or judges.
    I have said before that a mental background check would be fine.  What sucks about that is when a person does get denied for a gun because he didn't pass the psych exam will perhaps follow him for the rest of their life.

    Lawsuits could follow.  By a person denied, person misdiagnosed, doctor misdiagnosing and so on.

    Back to the case.  Dude "threatened law enforcement".  Did he threaten to shoot them?  Then that's not responsible.  Did he threaten to "beat their asses"?  You could threaten law enforcement in a bunch of different ways which is why I will take the side of he was "responsible gun owner" until I hear otherwise.  I'm not jumping to conclusions and look at it through the eyes of a court.

    You can't be an irresponsible driver if you get drunk at a bar and take a cab home.  It doesn't work like that.

    We could debate this guys character all day which is what you do seem to keep concluding to.  We could start profiling people and have internet watchdogs and put steroids in the Patriot Act if that would make you feel safer but I won't and don't want that.
    uh....you don't know what you're talking about
    Remember the Thomas Nine!! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
    2020: Oakland1, Oakland2
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 22,695
    “He threatened law enforcement.” Full stop. Method or type of threat shouldn’t be determining factor of whether he’s a “responsible” gun owner. Unbelievable to me the lengths you’ll go to to defend 2A. He was being investigated for months. It wasn’t a one off of “I’ll kick their ass.”

    Somebody you work with sends you an email or posts on Facebook that they’re going to kick your ass. You know they have multiple firearms. Do you feel threatened? Do you consider them a “responsible” gun owner?
    I love these "what if" scenarios you keep coming up with and your blatant disregard for law.

    I'll defend anything I think is bullshit and you keep spinning things which I will call bullshit, sorry not sorry.

    What about this scenario? C'mon man.   Go ahead, I'm ready for the next one because I am not answering this one, it's too much...
    What’s too much is that you think someone making threats and stockpiles weapons and ammo, resulting in arrest and felony charges, is a “responsible” gun owner. Your logic and that of others who agree with you is why nothing changes.

    We can agree to disagree and that’s fine not fine. Still ain’t personal though.
    I'm a "fringe" for certain things, I understand this.

    Stockpiling ammo thing is a joke.  It really is.  Having 10,000 rounds is not that.  1,000,000 perhaps but not 10,000.

    When I shot competitively, and I have mentioned this to you before, I shot on average 5 days a week using 200-300 rounds each day.  That's over 1000 rounds a week.  Buying 1000 rounds at a time is good but buying 10-40,000 rounds is much cheaper.
    Did you make online threats to law enforcement?
    Stupid...
    Why is that stupid? You claim 10,000 rounds is not stockpiling and so you think  the guy who threatened law enforcement was “responsible.” On the one hand you both had stockpiled 10,000 rounds, and on the other, only one of you, I assume, threatened law enforcement. And yet, according to you, you’re both “responsible” gun owners. Yikes.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 22,210
    “He threatened law enforcement.” Full stop. Method or type of threat shouldn’t be determining factor of whether he’s a “responsible” gun owner. Unbelievable to me the lengths you’ll go to to defend 2A. He was being investigated for months. It wasn’t a one off of “I’ll kick their ass.”

    Somebody you work with sends you an email or posts on Facebook that they’re going to kick your ass. You know they have multiple firearms. Do you feel threatened? Do you consider them a “responsible” gun owner?
    I love these "what if" scenarios you keep coming up with and your blatant disregard for law.

    I'll defend anything I think is bullshit and you keep spinning things which I will call bullshit, sorry not sorry.

    What about this scenario? C'mon man.   Go ahead, I'm ready for the next one because I am not answering this one, it's too much...
    What’s too much is that you think someone making threats and stockpiles weapons and ammo, resulting in arrest and felony charges, is a “responsible” gun owner. Your logic and that of others who agree with you is why nothing changes.

    We can agree to disagree and that’s fine not fine. Still ain’t personal though.
    I'm a "fringe" for certain things, I understand this.

    Stockpiling ammo thing is a joke.  It really is.  Having 10,000 rounds is not that.  1,000,000 perhaps but not 10,000.

    When I shot competitively, and I have mentioned this to you before, I shot on average 5 days a week using 200-300 rounds each day.  That's over 1000 rounds a week.  Buying 1000 rounds at a time is good but buying 10-40,000 rounds is much cheaper.
    Did you make online threats to law enforcement?
    Stupid...
    Why is that stupid? You claim 10,000 rounds is not stockpiling and so you think  the guy who threatened law enforcement was “responsible.” On the one hand you both had stockpiled 10,000 rounds, and on the other, only one of you, I assume, threatened law enforcement. And yet, according to you, you’re both “responsible” gun owners. Yikes.
    Yep, yikes.
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 22,210
    ^^^^^^^^ Too many characters in the quote feature. My response:

    I asked a very basic yes or no question, initially. You danced around and eventually answered. Your response is part of why nothing changes and nothing can be done. When you have the time, would you mind answering about whether the accused should undergo a mental health evaluation?
    No, because I'm not a psychiatrist, psychologist or mental health expert.

    I didn't dance around shit.  I flat out told you he was still a responsible gun owner.  YOU danced around and kept digging and asking other questions yet I still answered the same yes.  
    So you answered no because you're not a mental health professional? WTF? That's why you send them to a mental health expert or a panel of them. Seems you're okay with a person who stockpiled weapons and ammunition and made online threats, inclusive of to federal law enforcement officers, resulting in arrest, and you don't think they should be subject to a mental health evaluation? Is that right?
    I am not an expert in mental health so why on earth would I recommend or think that he should?

     I do believe how the law works is that a person does go to evaluation to make sure they are fit for trial and does see a behavioral expert?

    Is there a part of that you want changed?

    You are asking me about what the law should do and dictate but the law is already there.  It sounds like you want mental health questions factored in for everyone that owns a gun?  Is that what you are getting at? 
    I don't believe the mental health and behavioral evaluation(s) are part of the process, unless its a defense request in a potential mental illness/insanity defense. As a matter of intake? Perhaps a cursory, "have you ever harmed yourself?" "Are you suicidal?" I think anyone who stockpiles a large number of weapons and ammo, has the FBI investigate them and ends up being charged for threatening law enforcement, should be subject to a comprehensive mental health exam. Anyone purchasing a firearm should be required to attest, under threat of perjury, that they're of "sound mind and body" with a doctor's note from a primary care physician, and do so under renewal of license. Both would have an appeals process with the involvement of law enforcement, the medical community and a judge or judges.
    I have said before that a mental background check would be fine.  What sucks about that is when a person does get denied for a gun because he didn't pass the psych exam will perhaps follow him for the rest of their life.

    Lawsuits could follow.  By a person denied, person misdiagnosed, doctor misdiagnosing and so on.

    Back to the case.  Dude "threatened law enforcement".  Did he threaten to shoot them?  Then that's not responsible.  Did he threaten to "beat their asses"?  You could threaten law enforcement in a bunch of different ways which is why I will take the side of he was "responsible gun owner" until I hear otherwise.  I'm not jumping to conclusions and look at it through the eyes of a court.

    You can't be an irresponsible driver if you get drunk at a bar and take a cab home.  It doesn't work like that.

    We could debate this guys character all day which is what you do seem to keep concluding to.  We could start profiling people and have internet watchdogs and put steroids in the Patriot Act if that would make you feel safer but I won't and don't want that.
    uh....you don't know what you're talking about
    Of course I do.  See I just said I did.

    I have no idea what you are talking about.

    I'm out of here.  Y'all make me friggin nuts.
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 9,666
    Yeah go shoot up a piece of paper or something.
    Remember the Thomas Nine!! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
    2020: Oakland1, Oakland2
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 22,210
    Yeah go shoot up a piece of paper or something.
    Very adult of you.  Good burn.
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 9,666
    Yeah go shoot up a piece of paper or something.
    Very adult of you.  Good burn.
    Thanks....thought of that off the top of my head
    Remember the Thomas Nine!! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
    2020: Oakland1, Oakland2
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 9,666
    Remember the Thomas Nine!! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
    2020: Oakland1, Oakland2
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 22,210
    Yeah go shoot up a piece of paper or something.
    Very adult of you.  Good burn.
    Thanks....thought of that off the top of my head
    I'm waiting for the part where I don't know what I am talking about.  That is what I was hoping for.
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 9,666
    I'm waiting for the part where you tell me how many people you have shot.
    Remember the Thomas Nine!! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
    2020: Oakland1, Oakland2
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 22,051
    Yeah go shoot up a piece of paper or something.
    Very adult of you.  Good burn.
    Thanks....thought of that off the top of my head
    I'm waiting for the part where I don't know what I am talking about.  That is what I was hoping for.
    If you get ticketed for jay walking are you a responsible gun owner?
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 10,682
    mcgruff10 said:
    Yeah go shoot up a piece of paper or something.
    Very adult of you.  Good burn.
    Thanks....thought of that off the top of my head
    I'm waiting for the part where I don't know what I am talking about.  That is what I was hoping for.
    If you get ticketed for jay walking are you a responsible gun owner?
    I would have hoped that the average gun owner sees the difference between threats of violence and jay walking. Maybe not. 
     
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 22,210
    I'm waiting for the part where you tell me how many people you have shot.
    Da fuq?
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 22,051
    mcgruff10 said:
    Yeah go shoot up a piece of paper or something.
    Very adult of you.  Good burn.
    Thanks....thought of that off the top of my head
    I'm waiting for the part where I don't know what I am talking about.  That is what I was hoping for.
    If you get ticketed for jay walking are you a responsible gun owner?
    I would have hoped that the average gun owner sees the difference between threats of violence and jay walking. Maybe not. 
     
    I would have hoped the average Canadian would recognize sarcasm. Maybe not.  


    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 9,666


    THis is 600 rounds for a .380....10,000 rounds would be roughly $2,500 and amount to 17 of those boxes.  That's stockpiling ammo whether your intentions are good or not.
    Remember the Thomas Nine!! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
    2020: Oakland1, Oakland2
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 22,051


    THis is 600 rounds for a .380....10,000 rounds would be roughly $2,500 and amount to 17 of those boxes.  That's stockpiling ammo whether your intentions are good or not.
    You picked a pistol cartridge, I'm guessing the guy we keep talking about  bought 5.56 or .223.  But whatever, I don't think 10k rounds is a lot.  I "stockpile" certain types of ammo because sometimes I get a good deal (.22lr, surplus 30.06 or 7.62x54r for example).
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 22,210


    THis is 600 rounds for a .380....10,000 rounds would be roughly $2,500 and amount to 17 of those boxes.  That's stockpiling ammo whether your intentions are good or not.
    Now I see.

    That is fair.  Someone that isn't familiar with this will see it like that.  Totally fair.
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 9,666
    mcgruff10 said:


    THis is 600 rounds for a .380....10,000 rounds would be roughly $2,500 and amount to 17 of those boxes.  That's stockpiling ammo whether your intentions are good or not.
    You picked a pistol cartridge, I'm guessing the guy we keep talking about  bought 5.56 or .223.  But whatever, I don't think 10k rounds is a lot.  I "stockpile" certain types of ammo because sometimes I get a good deal (.22lr, surplus 30.06 or 7.62x54r for example).
    Right so even more expensive and requiring more boxes.  17 boxes....I'm guessing you don't go spend $2,500-$3,000 on ammo.
    Remember the Thomas Nine!! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
    2020: Oakland1, Oakland2
Sign In or Register to comment.