Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Reading comprehension is your friend. I didn't say it hasn't happened, I simply pointed out that the people making those statements are not a representative sample of all firearms owners.
And I didn't say they were.
I stand by my statement that not all people should be allowed to own guns or to have access to guns.
And that some of those people are posting on these threads.
Not nearly as much as the rants from the gun huggers who are totally freaking out and pledging violence against cops and the people who vote for this - even going so far as suggesting that they (including Obama and Biden) should be "lined up against the wall."
I have come to the realization in the last few days from reading City Data that background checks and mental health screening is an absolute necessity and that there are definitely those for whom gun confiscation should be mandatory.
Not everyone should be allowed to own guns.
I can pull most of the pro gun posters on here, the regulars, from memory. A lot of them are on my friends list. I have not seen any posts, such as you describe. I have in the past. They all had screen names like "Reichsturm" "SS Revival" "FokkWulf Blitz" and such. So, you want to compare guys like me to the slop that comes over here from Stormfront?
I won't disagree that that crowd is nuts. That they have guns, always have, always will, spooks me to. Hell, those guys have way more than just firearms. So do the big city bangers. Nothing is EVER going to change that. But, one other thing is certain, as well. If any of that crowd starts shooting, everyone I know, and myself, will be shooting back.
Citing posts from Neo Nazi wackjobs, and tossing the C-D regulars in with them is really reaching. Not one thing, in the new bans and regulations, that have flooded congress, and that you support, with gleeful zeal, will do anything to disarm these groups of nuts, or keep them from continuing to procure arms. Same with the inner city gangs.
I classify both groups in the same category. Criminal gangs. Funding their operations with drug money. I find the likleyhood of firing shots in anger to be more probable against the latter vermin, than against government gon confiscation squads. At any rate, try again. The people who wrote the posts you are talking about are NOT part of the regular American shooting community.
If that's what you think, can I just toss you in the bag with the group of, left wing, eco wackos, that blew up a stream used to water cattle, and shot 70in head with an SKS, in the Wassuks, here where I live, to protest cattle grazing on BLM land?
Not nearly as much as the rants from the gun huggers who are totally freaking out and pledging violence against cops and the people who vote for this - even going so far as suggesting that they (including Obama and Biden) should be "lined up against the wall."
I have come to the realization in the last few days from reading City Data that background checks and mental health screening is an absolute necessity and that there are definitely those for whom gun confiscation should be mandatory.
Not everyone should be allowed to own guns.
So gun owners talking s*!t (and not issuing death threats or committing crimes of any sort) on a moderated online forum should be targeted for gun confiscation?
Now watch closely everyone--we're now nearing the part where, after lefty comes along to advocate forceful firearm confiscation, anyone who accuses him(?) of wanting firearms confiscated will be ridiculed as paranoid, psychotic, delusional, etc.
And again, let's all keep in mind that Cinebar has clearly advocated gun confiscation for people who have yet to commit or be convicted of any crime. As far as these grabbers are concerned, there must be no presumption of innocence for a gun owner or Second Amendment rights advocate.
I can pull most of the pro gun posters on here, the regulars, from memory. A lot of them are on my friends list. I have not seen any posts, such as you describe. I have in the past. They all had screen names like "Reichsturm" "SS Revival" "FokkWulf Blitz" and such. So, you want to compare guys like me to the slop that comes over here from Stormfront?
Two in particular come to mind - both of them long time members here who seemed to have a lot of support - and who I will not name by names.
Their posts were deleted by a mod and some of those posts bragged about buying more guns and breaking laws the poster didn't agree with and swearing violence if he thought it was necessary and the other poster who comes to mind said that anyone who voted for this bill, including Obama and Biden, should be lined up against the wall. He didn't say what should happen then, but the inference was clear.
Again, I am not against gun ownership for sane people but I believe there are some posters here who have some "issues" and who should not be allowed access to guns.
So gun owners talking s*!t (and not issuing death threats or committing crimes of any sort) on a moderated online forum should be targeted for gun confiscation?
Now watch closely everyone--we're now nearing the part where, after lefty comes along to advocate forceful firearm confiscation, anyone who accuses him(?) of wanting firearms confiscated will be ridiculed as paranoid, psychotic, delusional, etc.
And again, let's all keep in mind that Cinebar has clearly advocated gun confiscation for people who have yet to commit or be convicted of any crime. As far as these grabbers are concerned, there must be no presumption of innocence for a gun owner or Second Amendment rights advocate.
So, we have to wait for the next mass murder before taking someone's right to own a gun away?
Do you think Adam Lanza should have been allowed access to guns? When it was clear he had mental issues?
Or what about the theater shooter, whose own psychiatrist tried to warn law enforcement about him?
Are you saying that people who clearly have mental issues should have free access to guns, just because they haven't *yet* massacred 26 people in a matter of minutes?
So, we have to wait for the next mass murder before taking someone's right to own a gun away?
Do you think Adam Lanza should have been allowed access to guns? When it was clear he had mental issues?
Or what about the theater shooter, whose own psychiatrist tried to warn law enforcement about him?
Are you saying that people who clearly have mental issues should have free access to guns, just because they haven't *yet* massacred 26 people in a matter of minutes?
Might as well just take everyone's rights away before they commit a crime.
So, we have to wait for the next mass murder before taking someone's right to own a gun away?
No--there is no instance of mass-murder that justifies confiscating the firearms of innocent individuals who are not found to be in unlawful possession of them (meaning that, if one is not, for instance, a dishonarably discharged member of the military, a convicted violent offender/felon or deemed mentally/criminally "defective" via due process in the courts, then they are entitled to own their firearms--simple).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinebar
Do you think Adam Lanza should have been allowed access to guns? When it was clear he had mental issues?
Adam Lanza should have been forcefully committed to in-patient psychiatric care, and, under such circumstances, his mother should have been allowed to have kept her firearms afterward.
Yes, my friend, you read that correctly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinebar
Or what about the theater shooter, whose own psychiatrist tried to warn law enforcement about him?
Well, I don't know...maybe if CO state had been allowed to pursue James Holmes and commit him to care through the courts...or maybe if his mental health records (assuming that there were records which were laden with red flags) should have been submitted to the NICS system...
Oh nevermind, let's just blame gun laws and everyone who opposes your idiotic, commandeering policy preferences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinebar
Are you saying that people who clearly have mental issues should have free access to guns, just because they haven't *yet* massacred 26 people in a matter of minutes?
Again, I'm saying that people who clearly have mental issues should be committed to in-patient psychiatric care for appropriate treatment.
But you, on the other hand, appear to believe that everyone should be subject to a legal presumption that indicts them for conspiracy to commit murder (basically) when attempting to exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Well, hopefully the extended background checks will help, although personally I don't think it goes far enough.
Eric Holder, the most genuine enemy of the Second Amendment and American gun owners if such a thing has ever existed, is given discretionary regulatory authority under the bill that has moved to the Senate floor.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
