Florida Gov. Rick Scott signs gun bill

[Inisfallen]

I’ll ignore commenting further on the ad hominem fallacy.

And another! Cathoholic is on a streak!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

If you are talking about Risk Protection Orders, are you suggesting that Nikolas Cruz would have years of hearings before his guns are taken away?

On the contrary, I am proposing that we use probable cause to take some guns away immediately before the hearing. That is what a Risk Protection Order is!

It was a “failure” of Government LeafByNiggle.

Not a failure of law-abiding citizens.

Nikolas Cruz was a law-abiding citizen up until the point where he shot up his school.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Inisfallen:

I dig the CAPS. Really, it makes your point so much stronger.

OK, I know this is way off topic, but this is not an ad hominem fallacy. It would have been an ad hominem fallacy if Inisfallen had gone on to use your typography as a reason for rejecting something you were reporting. But that did not happen. This is no more an ad hominem fallacy than when you say

It’s always the SAME solution for your guys.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle:

Nikolas Cruz was a law-abiding citizen up until the point where he shot up his school.

Only in technicality because Government dropped the ball.

“If you see something, say something!”

The citizens said something, and nothing got done.

Your solution?

MORE Government.

 

[Inisfallen]

Only in technicality because Government dropped the ball.

Not a technicality, as far as I know. He was mentally ill, that appears to be a certainty. But he obtained his gun(s) entirely legally. What law was he found to have broken? Was he arrested? Tried and convicted of anything? Until he pulled the trigger in that school, he was a law-abiding citizen.

 

[Cathoholic]

Inisfallen:

Not a technicality, as far as I know. He was mentally ill, that appears to be a certainty. But he obtained his gun(s) entirely legally.

And he should have had them taken away “entirely legally” too (Nikolas Cruz was making terroristic threats. Everyone honest knows that. For whatever reason, the ball was dropped on this. And it was dropped by Government, not by the good citizens).

We don’t need laws against the good guys because of the bad guys inisfallen.

If we used inisfallen logic, we’d have to disarm police too because of these guys . . . .

California cop arrested on suspicion of having inappropriate contact with minor

Matthew Huff will remain on administrative leave pending further investigation

www.cbsnews.com

San Antonio police officer arrested on shoplifting charges

SAN ANTONIO - We are learning about a San Antonio police officer who was arrested, and is now accused of shoplifting.The officer was released on bond a little after 3am Friday morning. We started getting tips about the incident Thursday after the officer w

news4sanantonio.com

Ex-cop who ‘beat the s–t out of’ jaywalk suspect charged with assault

A white ex-cop in North Carolina caught on bodycam video beating a black man suspected of jaywalking has been arrested on assault charges, authorities said. Christopher William Hickman, who resigne…

nypost.com

Las Vegas cop facing child sex charges is arrested after standoff, police say

A Las Vegas police officer -- who reportedly had been assigned to guard the door to gunman Stephen Paddock’s hotel room during the Oct. 1 massacre -- barricaded himself in his home Wednesday evening, prompting an hourslong standoff with police and a police SWAT unit.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Inisfallen]

If we used inisfallen logic, we’d have to disarm police too because of these guys . . . .

You’re not being logical. What I said was that Cruz had not been arrested for (as far as I know) or charged with or convicted everything.

You responded with a list of police officers who have indeed been arrested and charged (not sure about convictions) with violent or sexual offenses. They (individually, not all police officers) most certainly should be disarmed.

Blockquote

And I wish Cruz had never been able to buy a gun in the first place. That would have saved a bunch of lives. Now, in Florida, teenagers like him won’t be able to. I think that is a very good thing.

 

[Cathoholic]

You’re not being logical. What I said was that Cruz had not been arrested for (as far as I know) or charged with or convicted everything.

And what I said, was the citizens did their part to get him arrested etc.

Government didn’t.

Your solution?

MORE Government.

 

[Cathoholic]

Inisfallen:

And I wish Cruz had never been able to buy a gun in the first place. That would have saved a bunch of lives.

Yeah.

And I wish Government would have taken citizens complaints to heart. If they would have it would have saved a bunch of lives.

And I wish Government didn’t disarm people like coach. And if they respected that principle, maybe it would have saved a bunch of lives.

And I wish Government didn’t sit outside of the school for four minutes while the carnage was going on inside. If they didn’t it might have saved a bunch of lives.

Your solution?

MORE Government.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Nikolas Cruz was a law-abiding citizen up until the point where he shot up his school.

OK, quit dancing around the issue and tell me once and for all if you support Risk Protective Orders that would have taken away the gun immediately from anyone who is reported by someone to be a threat. You keep saying that Nikolas Cruz’s guns should have been taken away immediately, but you won’t commit to taking away John Doe’s guns who makes some kind of a threat to his friends at a bar. Time traveling to the future to see if they would shoot up a school is not a valid answer.

 

[Inisfallen]

“If you see something, say something!”

One would think that you, as someone vehemently opposed to MORE GOVERNMENT (love the caps) would be very much against any kind of “see something, say something” program – encouraging everyone to turn into snitches for the government.

Sounds sort of like you’d admire Cuba’s Committees for the Defense of the Revolution.

 

[Cathoholic]

Edited . . .

LeafByNiggle to Cathoholic (parenthetical addition mine for context) . . .

(do I) “support Risk Protective Orders that would have taken away the gun immediately from anyone who is reported by someone to be a threat.”

My answer? . . . .

I’m not going to get into what I think. It’s irrelevant as far as the Second Amendment goes.

As to risk protective orders, I can’t speak for all Constitutional supporters, but I would guess most are OK with that as long as the “order” goes before a judge and is PROMPTLY resolved.

The PROBLEM with that is Government officials frequently use such laws inappropriately.

For example the NICS check was foisted upon America promising to be “instantaneous”.

That’s what the “I” in NICS stands for, “instant”.

It was supposed to be immediate, but allowed up to ten days. We were told that this is necessary, in case of backlogs, etc.

Then Government officials began misusing the NICS check to “infringe” upon the citizens (sometimes).

They used this to delay good law-abiding citizens up to ten days before they were allowed to purchase their legal firearm. This is an unlawful bureaucrat-imposed “waiting period” (with yet again, no accountabilty for these trasgressions of law against our citizens).

Sometimes the Government does this to people who ALREADY own firearms! (So theoretically, there is no “waiting period”, it is just “infringement”).

This is WRONG. It is an ABUSE of power.

This CONTRIBUTES to a citizen mistrust of Government. And it’s not the citizens fault either.

It is the fault of the Government official who is ABUSING his power.

And there is almost never any accountibility (unlike the case for citizens when THEY abuse THEIR power).

And when this occurs, the gun-grabbers are SILENT or even SUPPORTIVE!

This “game” is not good for the country.

Or a DA, when he wants to “make an example” out of a home owner who is forced into a defensive gun usage against a bad guy.

The frequent abuse by Government attorneys has led to stand your ground legislation.

But citizens should not HAVE TO do this. And because you can’t legislate common sense in Government officials (nor citizens btw), it will KEEP happening at least to some extent.

And gun-grabbers OUGHT to call out these Government officials when they pull these things.

But you guys don’t.

You are never there it seems to support the good guys, and many times you guys are pom-pom waving for the Government abuse when it occurs.

Is it any wonder why many of the the good guys don’t trust yet another law?

Especially another law that was “knee-jerk” and would have done absolutely nothing to a given perpetrator.

But it WOULD INFRINGE upon the good law-abiding citizens.

So I can see why a Constitutional supporter would be fine with risk-protective orders.
But I can also see why another Constitutional supporter wouldn’t be fine with risk-protective orders.

Why not do your part and at least publicly decry these unaccountable Government abuses that we hear of so frequently?

 

[Cathoholic]

Inisfallen:

One would think that you, as someone vehemently opposed to MORE GOVERNMENT (love the caps) would be very much against any kind of “see something, say something” program

But it’s not about “me” and what “I” think Inisfallen.

I have always tried to be a good citizen just like you I’m sure you do too.

If there is a real issue, the good citizens will continue to notify the officials, just like they did at Parkland.

But that is no guarantee that Government officials will do the right thing with it.

And look. Those guys (for the most part) do their best too.

I am all for good Governance Inisfallen.

But I will not imbibe the Government “messiah” view that so many people here in a relatively fatherless America gravitate towards.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle:

It would have been an ad hominem fallacy if Inisfallen had gone on to use your typography as a reason for rejecting something you were reporting.

So it’s just plain insulting me and NOT . . .

. . . insulting me to try to belittle me to lend support to his position by that belittling.

OK LeafByNiggle. If you want to think that way, I’m OK with you thinking that way (but I will disagree with it too).

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

(do I) “support Risk Protective Orders that would have taken away the gun immediately from anyone who is reported by someone to be a threat.”

OK, see, we agree. Isn’t that nice? I also do not want to see someone deprived of their property for an extended period of time without a hearing. (I also think it is petty to belittle you or anyone else for their typography.)

 

[Cathoholic]

Cathoholic . . .

(do I) “support Risk Protective Orders that would have taken away the gun immediately from anyone who is reported by someone to be a threat.”

LeafByNiggle:

(I also think it is petty to belittle you or anyone else for their typography.)

Hold it LeafByNiggle. I just noticed this! I wasn’t trying to “belittle” anybody here. (Actually I thought your typography here was fine)

Just adding in the “(do I)” for context as there are many readers here that may not read the original point.

I apologize.

I’ll go back and “amend” my post and try harder in the future to not “infringe” on your points.

Admittedly I am having a little pun er I mean fun. But I am serious about my apology.

Also admittedly sometimes I do “belittle” someone who I am in a more intense discussion on (I try not to, but occasionally my rhetorical writing imperfections surface. When called on it, if I think I was excessively out of line, I just eat crow, apologize and go on.) Guilty as charged.

But “not guilty” on THIS occasion (at least by intent).

I’ll go back and edit my post to read . . .

LeafByNiggle to Cathoholic (parenthetical addition mine for context) . . .

(do I) “support Risk Protective Orders that would have taken away the gun immediately from anyone who is reported by someone to be a threat.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I was referring to inisfallen’s belittling of you for your all caps.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

Of I am not complaining about gun ownership IN GENERAL

What I am or would be complaining about is gun ownership in the hands of those that have Mental Issues or the potential for Mental issues.

Take one of my own brother’s for instance. He thinks every single Muslim here in the United States is here to kill us. He has mental issues to say the least. It is against this type of person we need to guard against having possession of deadly assault weapons.

Stronger background checks are not enough. We need mandated Psychological evaluations performed at some given interval to determine the ongoing mental state of each individual that has a gun permit. Because you never know when someone’s switch is going to flip - to borrow a phrase from the “Vampire Diaries”: “The Humanity Switch gets Turned Off”

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

Look JoshuaIsLord.

Your story is wrong.

Citizens don’t have Assault-weapons by mail order.

And they cannot get Ar-15’s (which are NOT “assault weapons”) via mail order either.

Even with super-secret passwords.

The only exception is if they have an FFL license (which does NOT appear to be what you are talking about here).

I just don’t believe it.

Some people are totally clueless about the power of the Internet.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

Your solution?

MORE Government.

More attacking the good law-abiding citizens.

More “Gun-Free Zone” stickers.

The Mass Murderer of Las Vegas was a good law-abiding citizen.

Most of the Mass Murders that used firearms were good law-abiding citizens until they were not.