4 killed at Waffle House

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peebo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jagged said:
And the NRA wants to make sure they can get the guns they need to kill people.
Click to expand...
Stop spouting dribble. I already educated you that the NRA supported our legislation to disarm the mentally ill. It’s dishonest of you to repeat things you know are false.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
JonNC:
40.png
exnihilo:
I don’t think so. I don’t think the NRA wants crazy people to have guns and they definitely don’t want them to use them to kill. But even if they didn’t have guns they’d use knives like the man did in California killing another man in a restaurant.
Click to expand...
Of course the NRA doesn’t want a guy like this to have a firearm. @Jagged regularly, intentionally, and dishonestly slanders the NRA and its members.
Click to expand...
And exnihilo regularly, intentionally, and dishonestly slanders liberals.
Click to expand...
you mean the same way you and other liberals on CAF regularly, intentionally and dishonestly slander our president?
 
QContinuum said:
Yet another reason I find our binary political system asinine.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Neither party has the best interests of the American public at heart anymore, nor do they have the interest they once did in meeting in the middle to serve all of the country’s various demographics.
 
jagged said:
It’s unfortunate that a political organization like the NRA fights legislation that would keep arms out of this man’s hands,
Click to expand...
This is a falsehood. As somebody already pointed out, the NRA supports legislation that would prevent psychotic individuals from accessing firearms.
 
jagged said:
It’s unfortunate that a political organization like the NRA fights legislation that would keep arms out of this man’s hands, but I’m sure if people start losing elections because of their “A” grade from the NRA, it won’t stand in the way for long.
Click to expand...
Yep. Continuing to tell your falsehoods
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Selective outrage. And I don’t know why you think exnihilo’s slander of liberals is a private affair, but Jagged’s comments about the NRA is as public outrage.
Click to expand...
And I haven’t seen any progressives challenge Jagged, either. I have seen @exnihilo slander anyone, but if I do, I’ll respond.
I believe in fair and frank dialogue. You and I have always had that.
 
This is yet another mass killer who the FBI was aware of and interacted with. The FBI is obviously useless at stopping crime. The recent publicity seeking of Comey offers insight as to why.

What I don’t get is how some people think the government will stop crime and therefore we should not be able to protect ourselves. It’s actually a ridiculous opinion since the places where the government has complete control and people have no liberty, prisons, are the most dangerous places imaginable.
 
MonteRCMS said:
The Feds took his guns last year but gave them back.
Click to expand...
Theo520 said:
They gave them back to his Dad, who returned them.
Click to expand...
Who legally owned the firearms he used? If the dad owned them, then giving them to his son could put him in legal jeopardy, assuming the son wasn’t legally allowed to possess a firearm. If the son owned them, and he was legally allowed to possess them, I’m not sure how the dad could legally have kept them from him.
 
Last edited:
Road-Worrier said:
Who legally owned the firearms he used? If the dad owned them, then giving them to his son could put him in legal jeopardy, assuming the son wasn’t legally allowed to possess a firearm. If the son owned them, and he was legally allowed to possess them, I’m not sure how the dad could legally have kept them from him.
Click to expand...
It all raises questions for me on how we legally keep guns away from mentally ill.

I think often the guns are taken on a temporary basis, in response to an incident, and the person isn’t banned from owning guns permanently. Maybe when they are on their meds, they are perfectly reasonable, but if they fall off the wagon, the risk returns in short order.
 
JonNC said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Selective outrage. And I don’t know why you think exnihilo’s slander of liberals is a private affair, but Jagged’s comments about the NRA is as public outrage.
Click to expand...
And I haven’t seen any progressives challenge Jagged, either.
Click to expand...
I did. I posted in this thread that only the NRA can speak for the NRA.
 
THEY’VE CAUGHT HIM!!!

Thank You, Jesus!!!

Details to come…

He was caught in the general vicinity. Seen in the woods. Story still developing.
 
Wearing black pants and maroon shirt. Was spotted by someone working at the apartment complex.
 
Theo520 said:
It all raises questions for me on how we legally keep guns away from mentally ill.

I think often the guns are taken on a temporary basis, in response to an incident, and the person isn’t banned from owning guns permanently. Maybe when they are on their meds, they are perfectly reasonable, but if they fall off the wagon, the risk returns in short order.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the sort of measure that the NRA opposes. They do support taking guns away from the mentally ill, but only after due process, which is defined as either being officially committed to a mental institution or other official process where time is given for a hearing. It should be noted that under those conditions the police could not have taken away Nickolas Cruz’s guns the day before he shot up MSD High School.

On the other hand, the process you described, where the subject is temporarily deprived of his guns without lengthy due process is vigorously opposed by the NRA.
 
Last edited:
I’m open to adjusting due process but not eliminating it, that would be completely crazy.

Also there are legal ways to disarm someone during the adjudication process, on a temporary basis.
 
Theo520 said:
I’m open to adjusting due process but not eliminating it, that would be completely crazy.
Click to expand...
Not to mention, unconstitutional. I’ve long argued that if you want to ban guns, getting rid of the 2nd amendment is insuffiicient. You also need to ditch the 1st and 5th at minimum.
 
Theo520 said:
I’m open to adjusting due process but not eliminating it, that would be completely crazy.

Also there are legal ways to disarm someone during the adjudication process, on a temporary basis.
Click to expand...
Then you are open to stuff that the NRA is not open to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top