SkyDekker 1,465 #76 April 24, 2007 absolutely. Funny enough, just read that only 22 states maintain the psych files. for the other states it is apparently too expensive or too intrusive on peoples privacy rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #77 April 24, 2007 And you think we should trust the Gov. with our personal safety???! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #78 April 24, 2007 Quoteabsolutely. Funny enough, just read that only 22 states maintain the psych files. for the other states it is apparently too expensive or too intrusive on peoples privacy rights. As you point out, The legal oportunity offered itself to make this nut ineligable to obtain a legal fire arm. It is a tuff call to say, "this is the point where privacy trumps public safety", or visa versa. There will never be a complete solution. Oh, and getting rid of guns is no answer either"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #79 April 24, 2007 QuoteAnd you think we should trust the Gov. with our personal safety???! Nope Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #80 April 24, 2007 QuoteOh, and getting rid of guns is no answer either I agree, but then I don't think there is a problem in the US to begin with, so no answer is needed. In this case there was no legal opportunity, cause according to Virginia law you are only ineligible if you have been committed against your will. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #81 April 24, 2007 QuoteQuoteWhat I saw on the news was a madman who gunned down thirty-two unarmed people in a "gun free zone." \ Don't forget to add: with legally obtained firearms. While we're selectively remembering: with legally obtained firearms that were illegally modified, and taken where to a location where they are not permitted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #82 April 24, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhat I saw on the news was a madman who gunned down thirty-two unarmed people in a "gun free zone." \ Don't forget to add: with legally obtained firearms. While we're selectively remembering: with legally obtained firearms that were illegally modified, and taken where to a location where they are not permitted. And the laws served to disarm those people on campus so they were easy prey for the nutjob CRIMINAL. I'm glad he's dead. The police have no obligation to protect any one individual. I'm not going to give up my right to protect myself, and you have no right to deny me that right.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #83 April 24, 2007 >I'm not going to give up my right to protect myself, and you have no >right to deny me that right. Literally correct. However, you also have the right to decide to not go places where you consider yourself defenseless, just as schools/businesses have the right to regulate your behavior on their property. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #84 April 24, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhat I saw on the news was a madman who gunned down thirty-two unarmed people in a "gun free zone." \ Don't forget to add: with legally obtained firearms. While we're selectively remembering: with legally obtained firearms that were illegally modified, and taken where to a location where they are not permitted. WHAT? People can LEGALLY obtain guns and then do bad things with them? You mean those wonderful, responsible Law Abiding Gun Owners can morph into CRIMINALS? Say it ain't so.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #85 April 24, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhat I saw on the news was a madman who gunned down thirty-two unarmed people in a "gun free zone." \ Don't forget to add: with legally obtained firearms. While we're selectively remembering: with legally obtained firearms that were illegally modified, and taken where to a location where they are not permitted. WHAT? People can LEGALLY obtain guns and then do bad things with them? You mean those wonderful, responsible Law Abiding Gun Owners can morph into CRIMINALS? Say it ain't so. "Can" does not equal "Will" Ergo, I should not be forced to give up my rights.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #86 April 24, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhat I saw on the news was a madman who gunned down thirty-two unarmed people in a "gun free zone." \ Don't forget to add: with legally obtained firearms. While we're selectively remembering: with legally obtained firearms that were illegally modified, and taken where to a location where they are not permitted. WHAT? People can LEGALLY obtain guns and then do bad things with them? You mean those wonderful, responsible Law Abiding Gun Owners can morph into CRIMINALS? Say it ain't so. "Can" does not equal "Will" Ergo, I should not be forced to give up my rights. See this. You have no right to enter a college campus.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #87 April 24, 2007 QuoteWHAT? People can LEGALLY obtain guns and then do bad things with them? You mean those wonderful, responsible Law Abiding Gun Owners can morph into CRIMINALS? Say it ain't so. Well, in this particular case he was just a wee bit grey on the matter of "law abiding," and probably lied on 11F of the 4473 form. Throw in the state failures to handle him prior and what we really see is a breakdown in the state's ability to enforce its regulation of guns. Now if we eliminated anyone's right to privacy with regards to mental health, maybe we stop this one. Either way, freedom isn't free. You have to accept the bad with the good. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #88 April 24, 2007 Quote>I'm not going to give up my right to protect myself, and you have no >right to deny me that right. Literally correct. However, you also have the right to decide to not go places where you consider yourself defenseless, just as schools/businesses have the right to regulate your behavior on their property. you keep trotting out this 'schools can make their own rules.' It's isn't an absolute truth, particularly for the state ones. The law says that you can't have guns on schools. I don't believe the school has a choice in that, either. Nor do they have unfettered choice when it comes to discrimination. Or your freedom to practice religion. Whether individuals should have 2nd amendment rights, or the natural right of self defense on campuses is a fair issue to debate, and it can't be dismissed away by a trivial notion of private property. I suspect there is a lot of "illegal" gun carrying going on this month. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #89 April 24, 2007 >It's isn't an absolute truth, particularly for the state ones. I agree - but the idea that individuals/businesses/organizations can regulate what goes on on their own property is a fairly universal one here in the US. >The law says that you can't have guns on schools. I don't believe the >school has a choice in that, either. Nor do they have unfettered choice >when it comes to discrimination. Or your freedom to practice religion. Depends on the school. My high school was an all-catholic all-male school that got a significant amount of state funding (although it was officially a private school.) Can't get much more discriminatory than that. OTOH, my college got less state money (as a percentage of their total budget) and more private funding - and had no such restrictions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #90 April 24, 2007 QuotePeople can LEGALLY obtain guns and then do bad things with them? You mean those wonderful, responsible Law Abiding Gun Owners can morph into CRIMINALS? What are you implying? That no one should be allowed to own guns because of what "might" happen sometime in the future? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #91 April 24, 2007 QuoteQuote>I'm not going to give up my right to protect myself, and you have no >right to deny me that right. Literally correct. However, you also have the right to decide to not go places where you consider yourself defenseless, just as schools/businesses have the right to regulate your behavior on their property. you keep trotting out this 'schools can make their own rules.' It's isn't an absolute truth, particularly for the state ones. The law says that you can't have guns on schools. I don't believe the school has a choice in that, either. Nor do they have unfettered choice when it comes to discrimination. Or your freedom to practice religion. Whether individuals should have 2nd amendment rights, or the natural right of self defense on campuses is a fair issue to debate, and it can't be dismissed away by a trivial notion of private property. I suspect there is a lot of "illegal" gun carrying going on this month. There are schools going against states intended laws by trying to ban guns when CC is allowed by law"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #92 April 24, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhat I saw on the news was a madman who gunned down thirty-two unarmed people in a "gun free zone." \ Don't forget to add: with legally obtained firearms. While we're selectively remembering: with legally obtained firearms that were illegally modified, and taken where to a location where they are not permitted. WHAT? People can LEGALLY obtain guns and then do bad things with them? You mean those wonderful, responsible Law Abiding Gun Owners can morph into CRIMINALS? Say it ain't so. "Can" does not equal "Will" Ergo, I should not be forced to give up my rights. See this. You have no right to enter a college campus. Thanks to the founding fathers keeping my guns is a protected right. Protected from people with opinions like yours who try to enact laws that take them away"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #93 April 24, 2007 Quote>It's isn't an absolute truth, particularly for the state ones. I agree - but the idea that individuals/businesses/organizations can regulate what goes on on their own property is a fairly universal one here in the US.Quote Really, even if that regulation steps on your rights? Since when did you advocate for that???"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #94 April 24, 2007 Quote Really, even if that regulation steps on your rights? Since when did you advocate for that??? He's been pretty consistent on this matter. I don't think he's correct, but I haven't seen him play the convenient side on this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,026 #95 April 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhat I saw on the news was a madman who gunned down thirty-two unarmed people in a "gun free zone." \ Don't forget to add: with legally obtained firearms. While we're selectively remembering: with legally obtained firearms that were illegally modified, and taken where to a location where they are not permitted. WHAT? People can LEGALLY obtain guns and then do bad things with them? You mean those wonderful, responsible Law Abiding Gun Owners can morph into CRIMINALS? Say it ain't so. "Can" does not equal "Will" Ergo, I should not be forced to give up my rights. See this. You have no right to enter a college campus. Thanks to the founding fathers keeping my guns is a protected right. Protected from people with opinions like yours who try to enact laws that take them away Ha ha - Tried carrying your gun into a courthouse recently? Or an airport? Or your state capitol building? I think you protest too much about the universality of your right.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,026 #96 April 25, 2007 Quote Quote People can LEGALLY obtain guns and then do bad things with them? You mean those wonderful, responsible Law Abiding Gun Owners can morph into CRIMINALS? What are you implying? That no one should be allowed to own guns because of what "might" happen sometime in the future? I am implying that all the whining about the poor downtrodden "law abiding gun owner" is a load of bollocks.Apparently, so-called "law abiding gun owners" can quickly become mass murderers.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,026 #97 April 25, 2007 Quote What I saw on the news was a madman who gunned down thirty-two unarmed people in a "gun free zone." Yes, shameful, isn't it, that the gun lobby has managed to water down the background checks to the extent that a "madman" can legally buy a gun and ammunition for the purpose of going on a killing spree.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ExAFO 0 #98 April 25, 2007 Quote I am implying that all the whining about the poor downtrodden "law abiding gun owner" is a load of bollocks.Apparently, so-called "law abiding gun owners" can quickly become mass murderers. And all women are equipped to quickly become prostitutes. But the difference is the vast majority won't, just as the vast majority of gun owners will not become criminals.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #99 April 25, 2007 Ha ha - Tried carrying your gun into a courthouse recently? Or an airport? Or your state capitol building? I think you protest too much about the universality of your right. This is what you need the debate to be for your argument to carry any weight. My only point was I am glad the 2nd amendment is written and it means what is means. Because of the meaning it is harder for those that think like you to take away this right. Tough position to be in huh!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #100 April 25, 2007 QuoteQuote What I saw on the news was a madman who gunned down thirty-two unarmed people in a "gun free zone." Yes, shameful, isn't it, that the gun lobby has managed to water down the background checks to the extent that a "madman" can legally buy a gun and ammunition for the purpose of going on a killing spree. Who did the watering down is the teary eyed liberals the keep saying privacy above all things and it is the fault of society. Put the blame square where it belongs sir. The "gun lobby' as you so put it does not want nuts like this to have guns no more than you do. (but once again you can't agrue that way because it waters down your point) But, if a judge did his/her job and put this nut case away then the background check would remove the probability of him buying one. But to be politically correct we can't do that or the civil liberties union would cry fowl. That information is private. keep trying if you wish, but you can't lay this one at the feet of the NRA"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 4 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kelpdiver 2 #94 April 24, 2007 Quote Really, even if that regulation steps on your rights? Since when did you advocate for that??? He's been pretty consistent on this matter. I don't think he's correct, but I haven't seen him play the convenient side on this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #95 April 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhat I saw on the news was a madman who gunned down thirty-two unarmed people in a "gun free zone." \ Don't forget to add: with legally obtained firearms. While we're selectively remembering: with legally obtained firearms that were illegally modified, and taken where to a location where they are not permitted. WHAT? People can LEGALLY obtain guns and then do bad things with them? You mean those wonderful, responsible Law Abiding Gun Owners can morph into CRIMINALS? Say it ain't so. "Can" does not equal "Will" Ergo, I should not be forced to give up my rights. See this. You have no right to enter a college campus. Thanks to the founding fathers keeping my guns is a protected right. Protected from people with opinions like yours who try to enact laws that take them away Ha ha - Tried carrying your gun into a courthouse recently? Or an airport? Or your state capitol building? I think you protest too much about the universality of your right.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #96 April 25, 2007 Quote Quote People can LEGALLY obtain guns and then do bad things with them? You mean those wonderful, responsible Law Abiding Gun Owners can morph into CRIMINALS? What are you implying? That no one should be allowed to own guns because of what "might" happen sometime in the future? I am implying that all the whining about the poor downtrodden "law abiding gun owner" is a load of bollocks.Apparently, so-called "law abiding gun owners" can quickly become mass murderers.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #97 April 25, 2007 Quote What I saw on the news was a madman who gunned down thirty-two unarmed people in a "gun free zone." Yes, shameful, isn't it, that the gun lobby has managed to water down the background checks to the extent that a "madman" can legally buy a gun and ammunition for the purpose of going on a killing spree.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #98 April 25, 2007 Quote I am implying that all the whining about the poor downtrodden "law abiding gun owner" is a load of bollocks.Apparently, so-called "law abiding gun owners" can quickly become mass murderers. And all women are equipped to quickly become prostitutes. But the difference is the vast majority won't, just as the vast majority of gun owners will not become criminals.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #99 April 25, 2007 Ha ha - Tried carrying your gun into a courthouse recently? Or an airport? Or your state capitol building? I think you protest too much about the universality of your right. This is what you need the debate to be for your argument to carry any weight. My only point was I am glad the 2nd amendment is written and it means what is means. Because of the meaning it is harder for those that think like you to take away this right. Tough position to be in huh!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #100 April 25, 2007 QuoteQuote What I saw on the news was a madman who gunned down thirty-two unarmed people in a "gun free zone." Yes, shameful, isn't it, that the gun lobby has managed to water down the background checks to the extent that a "madman" can legally buy a gun and ammunition for the purpose of going on a killing spree. Who did the watering down is the teary eyed liberals the keep saying privacy above all things and it is the fault of society. Put the blame square where it belongs sir. The "gun lobby' as you so put it does not want nuts like this to have guns no more than you do. (but once again you can't agrue that way because it waters down your point) But, if a judge did his/her job and put this nut case away then the background check would remove the probability of him buying one. But to be politically correct we can't do that or the civil liberties union would cry fowl. That information is private. keep trying if you wish, but you can't lay this one at the feet of the NRA"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
