Is this true or is it how we follow the existing laws the issue? Im guessing with this response you didn't read the full story? The issue isnt the gunlaws or lack of, its the lack of follow through OF the laws already in place that are fucked up. Im trying to read only the OT but when i read such things like this, it compels me to comment. Can you please specifically cite which law is fucked up? Or do you know of the warning signs this guy portrayed that were, once again, ignored by those who, if they had followed the procedure, likely could have prevented this? Where is the angst towards the individuals who saw the warning signs and failed to act? but yeah. All about the fucked up gun laws….never about the condition of the individual using the gun…or the lack of follow through from those who saw the warning signs… I read somewhere someone said theyll take social media over a gun pointed at them. Well lets see… Social Media & Suicide Over the last ten years, there has been a significant rise in the risk of teenage suicide. Although several factors play a role in an individual’s choice to take their life, recent studies have established connections between mental health issues such as depression and suicidal ideation, and social media usage. but we keep focusing on guns….what a backwards world we live in from my view…. Priority of focus is all backwards.
Doesnt matter. We could ban all guns, let only criminals have guns and people would still be… guns!!!!!!!! Instead of the individual mentality of those wielding the guns… Focal priority is all f’ed up. Not the gun laws.
whats a good one? Is there a good one? Why are we focused on new laws when the existing cant be followed????? Until we actually adhere to the warning signs and actions that should follow, how do ww know if the current laws in place are good enough or not? are we beating the horse in a circle jerk? ban all guns and only criminals have guns. not something id vote for. There is no gun law that will fix mentally ill people. One day this will sink in.
It's absolutely a distraction as far as I can tell. It's a convenient thing to argue about with constant reminders that drive both bases crazy. Means more money for both parties. They don't want this solved. If you did fix the social services that actually could help and save lives, people will realize how helpful they are and stop fighting about it. The gun debate is the campaign fundraiser that just keeps on giving.
This guy met every requirement for that law. Both police and doctors were involved and he was declared a threat to himself and others. There is no other law that would have allowed more restrictions on him. Laws don't work if they aren't enforced. New laws don't change that.
We could ban all guns. Then there would be cheap fully automatic machine guns all over the black market, cheaper than you can by hunting rifles for now.
Well yes, of course criminals. As well as probably millions of otherwise law abiding citizens. Who would then become criminals...
A red flag law would have likely done better to stop him. A yellow flag law left it up to police and doctors who failed. The law needs to be an automatic requirement to remove guns from such people, not merely at the discretion of others. It must be a requirement not a choice. If someone is proven a danger to themselves and others, and they are mentally unstable bye bye guns.
That's not possible to enforce. Either the police or the doctors are going to have to file it. If you take the decision away from them they'll just stop making that diagnosis.
Now it’s social media’s fault? The same social media that allows my family to share pictures of newborns and birthdays…..the same social media that allows me to follow the NBA or the same social media that was the main reason my daughter got a full ride to play college soccer. SAVE THAT BULLSHIT FOR SOMEBODY ELSE!!!!
Sure. Specifically, the way the Supreme Court has interpreted and ruled on the 2nd Amendment is seriously fucked up. Happy to get into it if you want, but it will bore everyone here. Suffice it to say that the Court has had to ignore both the words of the Second Amendment, and ignore the meaning of even strict construction, to get to the place where it is today. The founders never thought all guns should be available to everyone. Read the Federalist Papers. So yeah, sorry, I'm not just some dummy with no reason for what I said.
OK @SharpeScooterShooter, since you came here to the OT Forum, it's your turn to defend your position. The 2nd Amendment reads, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” You're a strict constructionist, right? Please tell me what militia the maniac in Maine was part of. Oh, right. None. Then he had no "right" to own a gun. Disagree? Then please explain why he had a constitutional right to bear arms. Cite your sources.
I never said or tried to claim you were a dummy. So lets not go there if you want to keep this civil. I asked several pointed questions and you didn't answer one of them. But absolutely. We can debate this. On the side, but since you asked, For the record, im a liberal republican who believes in smaller fed gov and more state and local gov. There is nothing more to it than that really. Okay. First, this is an amendment of the constitution you speak of. Not one of the many laws about gun restrictions that have been passed in various states, that i was inquiring about. You said “the Laws are fucked up.” Not the constitutional amendment. There is a difference. I do not know all the details of this mans past. Its irrelevant to the amendment you bring up though, because i believe you are misinterpreting it. He does not need to be part of an official “ militia”. He merely meeds to want to own arms to protect against an evil gov with a militia. The militia doesn't come to be until something happens and citizens gather and organize. Until then its individual civilians owning guns “in case”. The point of the amendment is to guarantee the citizens rights to bare arms to withstand a tyrannical government. At the time it was written, British rule did not allow the people to have these weapons and it made it impossible for the people to rise up against evil dictatorship. This has been a ploy of government institutions since the beginning of time. Keep weapons from the masses and you can keep them in check. So to speak. We are the first country to write into effect the citizens right to own and take up arms to protect themselves of such a situation. Now some may say we no longer have that threat. I beg to differ. Jan6th is one instance showing how shit may go south. We could end up in a world war with invasions from within by already planted seeds from foreign countries who have long sought our downfall. In no way do i want to remove the right of the people to not take up arms against a government or ruling entity that may be evil, corrupt or holding society by the nutsack as slaves. lets say for example, since there are is so much TDS around here, lets use him as an example. What if Trump employed the national guard in Portland and took our city over for the long haul? What if jan6 worked and those nutcases took over the Whitehouse and handed the keys back to Trump and lets say trump has several high ranking military on his side. Lets say proof came out that he did lose the election but he then refuses to hand over the house back and uses the military to continue the coup and refuse to leave, employing his rule over the country? This is where the amendment comes into play. This amendment ensures the civilians can own arms so if something like this happens we actually have a chance of fending off this coup. There are millions of guns and gun owners out there. Less than .001 percent of them go on murder shooting sprees. There are millions of automobiles out there and people have used them to plow down people in crowds in an attempt to mass kill. People use them to ram others in road rage incidents. Should we ban cars? its about the same percent of car owners who use them for nefarious, evil intent to mame/kill other humans, so lets ban cars too! im sorry but until we start focusing on what is making another want to do this, instead of the tool they do it with, your fighting the wrong fight. crazy people will always find a method for their madness. Stop the madness and you stop the method. Stop the method they will find another method. Can be amendment use an update so the words fit todays times? Possibly. But that won't change anything other than make ut clearer for those who aren't able to understand the changing of times from when it was written to now, and how it still holds true. It strikes me curious. Those who want to ban guns because of the victims. I get the initial thought. Emotions are high on this topic. But how, when trying to speak on us being better, shouldn't need guns anymore, etc, is not the illness of these people even a thought to the anti gun lobby? Why is there not more compassion shown in the form of wanting to make mental health a priority to improve? anti gun lobbyists speak of “where is the humanity”, well i ask the same question back. Why would not you want to try to solve the problem at the root? Sweeping the weapon under the rug will not solve the problem. These nuts will just build okc style bombs. So we go from shooting sprees to dozens dead in a terror explosions. Whats the difference? Any gun banning will do nothing to stem the mental issues causing people to behave in such ways. So the focus on banning guns, to me, is disingenuous and basically strawman. If they actually cared aBout the people, they would want to take steps to prevent people from entering such a mental state. Not just react but prevent with proaction.
Fucking coward. Shoots unarmed people and children in a bowling alley but offs himself rather than face consequences.
