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.
Nikolas Cruz was expelled. The school and its community did everything in their power to address the issues they had with him. The local police had no legal authority despite his multiple threats to others, to take away his legally purchased guns.
Finally, stop blaming it on bullying, it is a false narrative.
Exactly. If bullying were the cause - we'd have a tons of gay kids and trans kids shooting up schools. Yet ~ they aren't.
Ever carry Tampax or pads for your period when you were a teenager? I would have been embarrassed to do that in a clear back pack. I had a friend in high school who had a wear a bag attached to her stomach to poop in. She would have been embarrassed to have to carry her extra bag in a clear back pack. I'm sure if you thought about it you could come up with a few other things you wouldn't want others to see.
Well, it looks like you don't want to give up certain freedom because it is embarrassing to you. Maybe somebody don't want to give up their AR-15 just because somebody feel uncomfortable around them. See how that works?
All I am saying is that HIS common sense approach and MINE just don't match. Now what? Maybe we should have a civilized conversation, so both sides can be heard.
No party needs to be demonized here.
By the way, Going through bag check and security when entering a Walt Disney World park likely is not your favorite part of the day. I get it, but you still need to do it.
It looks like one group does not like to get their bags checked, one group doesn't want to give up their AR-15. Now what?
The police had no legal right to take away Nikolas Cruz’s guns despite his issues with the law, his expulsion from school, his record of making threats. How about starting by making that legal?
The DA charges him and brings him into "court" (ie, due process be it criminal or of the mental status) so the police do have a legal right.
However, something apparently got in the way and the DA could not do his job.
The thing we must avoid is making it easy for the government to remove someone's rights. If the government wants to do so, they have to work for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
A license requirement, much like the carry license we have now. To get a license, one must:
- Take a basic firearm handling and safety course
- Pass criminal background check
- Pass a drug test
- Pass mental evaluation
Addressing this suggestion directly, two things.
First, does the individual have to pay for all of this out of their own wallet?
Secondly, is it "Shall Issue"? That if nothing is found wrong, the government shall issue each and every time.
I did not ignore it, your failure to understand my post though, is noted.
Your posted talked about cruz, that was visited by the police how many times? and nothing was done. What more do you want? The police and the FBI did not do their job, period. Is it that hard to understand?
The police had no legal standing for taking away Nikolas Cruz's guns. There was no legal basis to prevent him from legally buying a gun, despite all of his threats, expulsion from school and so on. Reread my post. My "common sense" suggestion for gun laws would rectify that.
But you ignored it. Again. Because if you were honest, you would admit you will not allow for any gun control at all.
The DA charges him and brings him into "court" (ie, due process be it criminal or of the mental status) so the police do have a legal right.
However, something apparently got in the way and the DA could not do his job.
The thing we must avoid is making it easy for the government to remove someone's rights. If the government wants to do so, they have to work for it.
Then this is where we disagree.
Once someone has threatened someone, I believe we take them at their word. It does not become a burden upon the government to prove that they meant what they said but rather for them to prove they did not mean it.
Once someone has threatened someone, I believe we take them at their word. It does not become a burden upon the government to prove that they meant what they said but rather for them to prove they did not mean it.
Sometimes, it is hard to say who is the bully here.
"You don't need an AR-15, you don't need it, you don't need it. I want it gone." Sounds like bullying to me.
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.
