You skipped over my post suggesting universal background checks and restricting 2A rights to some, as long as due process is followed. Do you agree those steps can help in the long term?
Just like 2A absolutists here. We have yet to hear them offer a solution, just repeating talking points
Awkward how? Awkward in that you don't understand the difference between legislation and an executive order? Awkward in that you don't even understand the article you posted?
So Obama made an EO that impacted ONLY those on social security who had someone else with power of attorney managing their money (their SS or SSI disbursements). Think about that.
Two things...
1. A lot of these people were so far over the hill they weren't about to get out of their wheel chairs, move fast in their walkers or even remember their own name so that they could buy a gun to begin with.... What threat exactly were they again? Feel good EO it is.
2. Some of these people simply weren't good at managing their own money but otherwise were fine upstanding citizens with ZERO history of mental illness. Their rights under the 2nd Amendment were violated.
Some of you treat that EO as if it truly was targeted at the mentally ill or that it was some sort of sweeping EO policy directive that impacted every citizen. Stop pretending it was.
nice try.
Or is it time to blame Obama because of something horrible he did?
It wasn't Republicans that offered up universal background checksSchool shootings and mass shootings aren't anything new. Point was lost on you. Neither party has the intestinal fortitude to do shit about it. The only thing each one counts on is your vote either left or right. The issue is the same, the only thing that is different between parties is how they play you. All that does is create the stereotypes we have today of what the GOP or DNC stand for... Which is pretty much the same fucking thing. Power, greed, and manipulation....Way short on policy of any substance.
See my post above, don't #bothsides this. Obama's EO was specifically targeting this kind of shit, and Trump revoked it, because Obama implemented it. There's no arguing that.Neither party has the intestinal fortitude to do shit about it.
I love how subtle points are lost on you.
POINT IS... Party in charge doesn't fucking matter. Shit, the 93 ban under Clinton was a win for nobody as it was strictly cosmetic and wasn't an actual ban... The gun industry and gun owners laughed the entire ten years it was in place and the gun control crowd got to do a victory dance over something that was simply symbolic.
You're kinda wrong.
https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...f-the-nics-improvement-amendments-act-of-2007
It requires federal agencies to provide relevant records to the AG for inclusion in NICS. Those provide information on identification of DI beneficiaries, SSA/SSI beneficiaries, etc. It *also* provides information for restriction of gun ownership per federal background checks. Those two things are separate, it's just that the same information is relevant for both (if you're getting SSI coverage for a mental disability, you probably don't have business owning a firearm).
School shootings and mass shootings aren't anything new. Point was lost on you. Neither party has the intestinal fortitude to do shit about it. The only thing each one counts on is your vote either left or right. The issue is the same, the only thing that is different between parties is how they play you. All that does is create the stereotypes we have today of what the GOP or DNC stand for... Which is pretty much the same fucking thing. Power, greed, and manipulation....Way short on policy of any substance.
You wrote insane, but I think you mean abusive to women.I would say we have a troubling dillema
The shooters who do this fit a certain profile. These guys arent drug dealers, drug runners, these guys are insane.
When we get tipped off that a guy threatens to shoot people or thinks some mormon conspiracy or other strange behavior...how far do you go to deny that person of their freedom on the potential they may cause harm?
One night? a week? 10 years?
There are thousands of potential school shooters out there and the vast majority wont commit any crimes.
Yes... So I was indeed right. The point someone else was attempting to imply was that the democrats did indeed pass sweeping gun legislation via congress by linking to an article about the nullification of the EO.
Stop trying to make an argument where there is none.
Still waiting to hear why it was ok to allow this guy to buy an AR-15
Compared to doing not a goddamned thing, implementing a requirement that agencies report mental health incidents to NICS is indeed 'sweeping gun legislation'. You're moving the goalposts so that you're right. Why is that so important to you?Yes... So I was indeed right. The point someone else was attempting to imply was that the democrats did indeed pass sweeping gun legislation via congress by linking to an article about the nullification of the EO.
Stop trying to make an argument where there is none.
In the past I've stated that I think universal background checks could do some good over time and that doesn't affect the rights of gun owners. I've said that people should be able to be stripped of their right to own a gun in some circumstances, so long as due process is followed. Do you agree those steps could make a difference?
I believe Dems offered this up after Gabby Giffords shooting and NRA/Republicans shot it down.You skipped over my post suggesting universal background checks and restricting 2A rights to some, as long as due process is followed. Do you agree those steps can help in the long term?
Still waiting to hear why it was ok to allow this guy to buy an AR-15
I agree, it isn't the Dem's fault that we have gun violence (but I don't blame the Repubs either). An attempt at pushing healthcare in this country in the direction of socialism was more important to the Dems than curbing gun violence, and you agree with that. Noted.
Hey Trump. Remember what you said about neighbors have to report guys like this?
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/us/n...wCNN021518nikolas-cruz-fbi-warned1027AMVODtop
Apparently a second different threat was reported as well.
It's almost like we need better mental health identification, care, and reporting. Not that it would have helped here, since Trump abolished the requirement for them to report to NICS anyhow (and thus it would have never hit a background check).because he was not in the nics as prohibited.
if there was a reason for him to be there, and looks like there was, why was he not reported?
ask his doctors
I believe Dems offered this up after Gabby Giffords shooting and NRA/Republicans shot it down.
People who are mentally unstable and/or have anger issues should not be allowed to purchase guns. As part of the application process social media history should me examined.
These steps should be enacted.
If the FBI wasn't worried about getting Trump removed from office, maybe they should have investigated the kid. Didn't they get warnings about the Boston bombers as well? Another case of the FBI failing to take any action against what seems like an easily identifiable threat to society and people still think there is nothing wrong with the FBI or DOJ. A very obvious mentally unstable person was allowed to roam around waiting to explode in a fit of violence and the best solution is to require more background checks or call out the GOP as racists. If direct reports about this guy didn't spur action, I doubt any of the other "solutions" around gun control would have helped.
I believe Dems offered this up after Gabby Giffords shooting and NRA/Republicans shot it down.
People who are mentally unstable and/or have anger issues should not be allowed to purchase guns. As part of the application process social media history should me examined.
These steps should be enacted.
So knowing what we know about this guy you are ok with selling him an AR-15. That's fucked up. I guess you missed his social media posts where he threatened to kill people with an AR-15Simple. He had done nothing illegal that would prevent him being denied legal purchase of a long arm. That isn't the core debate though.
What should be the question is what should be the threshold for getting on the database that would prevent you from legal purchase of a firearm? THe kid was a problem child and had been expelled for numerous reasons but one of the things he did prior to being expelled was to show up at school with ammunition in his bag. Pretty sure if I showed up as an adult with firearm related content on me or in my possession I at minimum depending on jurisdiction would end up with a misdemeanor. Still not enough to prevent legal purchase of a firearm, but perhaps we need to change what qualifies people to be on the list.
Neither party has the intestinal fortitude to do shit about it. .