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.
It seems to you that a sane person would shoot at the cops?
This case, IMHO, was ABSOLUTELY justified. The cops were ABSOLUTELY justified in trying to take his guns.
Maybe that would be a good litmus test as to whether someone should own guns.
Cops come up, in broad daylight, and say they've had a report you're not fit to own guns. If you respond by shooting them, you get your guns taken away.
Perfect system.
(The cops did have a court order, which isn't just a report from the sister in law. Requires more proof).
I dont care if police have a court order or not...if they are attempting to do something that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, shooting at them would be the logical and appropriate thing to do imo, it may sound crazy or bizarre, but that is what patriotism is and what it requires from time to time.
And if people believe state agents (police, troops) won't dutifully carry out the work of tyrants against their fellow countrymen, let this be a lesson
And if people believe state agents (police, troops) won't dutifully carry out the work of tyrants against their fellow countrymen, let this be a lesson
Yes
Ive said it before...there is a very fine line between patriotism and terrorism (especially domestic terrorism).
Actually a few months ago that shooter had interaction with the police and one of their experts determined that he wasn't a threat to himself or others. Were they correct in their decision? Obviously not. So there is a chance that is just as good a chance that the decision to remove someone's guns is incorrect as well.
In April, neighbors called the Police after hearing loud noises in the house. The shooter was described as acting irrationallly. the Thousand Oaks shooter was evaluated and determined not to be a danger to himself or others, at that point in time. No one has a crystal ball.
Reportedly he bought the gun after that. ( This may or may not be correct) No one knows why. Absolutely no reason to have denied his right to do so according to federal/ state laws. And yet, something was brewing inside him.
Reportedly, his mother feared him and for him. Was she aware he owned a gun?
Yes. That's the cost of living in such a free country.
Lanza had to kill his own mother to get the keys to the gun safe. He was known to be dangerous and obsessed with school shootings. The guns should have stayed and he should have been removed from the home.
Curious about your last sentence. If our thought process is non existent then how would we know it?
He killed his mother with one of her guns, not to access her guns. He then drove her car to the school.
Obviously his mother was in denial, given the arsenal in her home. Reportedly, she was not allowed in his space.
It’s very challenging to have a court rule on mental deficiency especially with no history of being dangerous.
In quick time. Aside from the glaring constitutional issues, which will turn the primary local support base of cops against them, $60k per year cops aren't going to do this day in and day out. The risk to their lives is too above and beyond, and unnecessary. This time a citizen was killed. Its only time before it goes the other way.
I'd wager, given enough time, they'll have fairly reliable percentages in regard to how often his leads to death and how often it is of a cop or citizen. No cop is going to roll that dice day in and out.
This law is so bad that those who put it into play should start praying that they aren't held accountable after the toll becomes high enough.
All you gunnuters were peeved at Adam Lanzas mother because of what she did or did not do, but now you think it would have been wrong for her to get the cops to take the guns.
You’re thought process is non existent you know that, right?
No, yours is. You're going to paint citizens with the brush of future mass shooters, or in other words, with an accusation of pre-crime, and begin revoking rights?
You do know how this can be expanded, right?
Put the bong down, cheech.
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.
