|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Hmmm, I wonder if there's a lesson here /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1568233218 Message started by justin_o_guy2 on 09/11/19 at 13:20:18 |
|
Title: Hmmm, I wonder if there's a lesson here Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/11/19 at 13:20:18 http://https://i1.wp.com/thomaswispered.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/image-106.png?w=692&ssl=1 |
|
Title: Re: Hmmm, I wonder if there's a lesson here Post by MnSpring on 09/11/19 at 13:53:53 The 'Gun Grabbers' Goal, Is NOT, to save Innocent Lives, or Protect Freedom. It is to BAN ALL GUNS, So Socialism can take over, and they can fill their pockets, from the work of the, 'Useful Idiots', who helped them Ban Guns. |
|
Title: Re: Hmmm, I wonder if there's a lesson here Post by T And T Garage on 09/11/19 at 13:59:26 Yeah, I've heard that Ol' TJ himself had 17 Armalites, a couple kalashnikovs and every Remington shotgun..... oh, wait..... |
|
Title: Re: Hmmm, I wonder if there's a lesson here Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/11/19 at 14:19:42 Ooops, I should have realized that the Unprincipled Would fail to grasp the Concept When it conflicts with the Agenda. Explain what is said that has anything to do with type of weapon. Why would a law abiding citizen not be able to have what the criminal might use against them? Don't start hollering Answer the questions, okay? |
|
Title: Re: Hmmm, I wonder if there's a lesson here Post by T And T Garage on 09/11/19 at 14:31:48 332C2A2D30370636063E2C206B590 wrote:
You "cold, dead hands" people confuse "Shall not be infringed" with "absolutely no limits of ownership". |
|
Title: Re: Hmmm, I wonder if there's a lesson here Post by MnSpring on 09/11/19 at 14:39:19 372926272A372C31430 wrote:
You "cold, dead hands" people confuse "Shall not be infringed" with "absolutely no limits of ownership".[/quote] A-Yep, Spin, Deflect, and then, Move the Goal Posts ! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Hmmm, I wonder if there's a lesson here Post by raydawg on 09/11/19 at 14:47:45 Some form of trying to identify those who SHOULD NOT own a weapon, is not the same as forbidding a person of sound mind and law abiding....to owning a gun. I am also in favor of sobriety check points, and face recognition technology, in law enforcement ( finding criminals ). A gun is a tool when used as protection, so are other forms available to us, with the goal of protecting the innocent, the same. Yes, its sad we need to take these precautions, but it is just a price we pay for a open and free society, like taking off your shoes at the airport, scanners, etc.... |
|
Title: Re: Hmmm, I wonder if there's a lesson here Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/11/19 at 15:00:05 736C6A6D70774676467E6C602B190 wrote:
Explain where what he said Is wrong |
|
Title: Re: Hmmm, I wonder if there's a lesson here Post by T And T Garage on 09/11/19 at 15:10:19 7D6264637E7948784870626E25170 wrote:
I just want to point out something first..... None - repeat - NONE of us "terrible libs" on here want to ban guns et al. NONE. So - to the point at hand- I actually agree with Jefferson. But to be clear, he wasn't talking about all arms, was he? Armament then and armament now are two completely different things. If you say otherwise, you're lying to yourself. The point I interject is that there should be limits on ownership. Those limits can be gotten to through background checks or weapon types or weapon capacity or any combination thereof. But there needs to be limits. I don't care if you like to shoot with bump stocks or semi-auto assault rifles... I like to drive really fast, but I can't because of speed limits. The government doesn't restrict my right to drive, but yet I can't drive a Formula 1 down the highway either. (yeah, I realize that there is no "right" to drive, so don't start). The Second Amendment says that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". There is no mention of what arms are considered. There's no possible way they could have foreseen 1- the size of the Country and 2 - the technology and killing power of modern guns. So... there is no "question" - I said I agree with Jefferson. I'm circumventing a pointless conversation about how you will equate "shall not be infringed" to "limitless ownership". |
|
Title: Re: Hmmm, I wonder if there's a lesson here Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/11/19 at 15:18:29 Then you're cool with every law abiding adult who wants to be able to engage in self-defense and be able to protect other innocents carrying , Ohhh, say a 9 mms, or anything it would be common seeing cops carry? |
|
Title: Re: Hmmm, I wonder if there's a lesson here Post by MnSpring on 09/11/19 at 15:22:43 21322A37322434530 wrote:
True. The problem is, that is NOT the goal for the people that want to write the laws. Take a 'red' law. (Where anyone can 'tell on' anyone) A girlfriend, a neighbor, someone who just doesn't like the way you look, 'can', say, "Hey that person .....". Then, 'that' person has all their guns taken away ! Yes, 'red' laws are good, if they are written well. Not written with the Goal, of JUST removing firearms. Like the, 'law' Obama wrote. Where Mom/Pop sold everything, bought a motor-home, and are traveling around the country. Because each week they are in a different place, they 'assigned' a trusted person/child/etc, to take over their financial affairs, to pay their bills. Under Obama, they were, 'Mentally Ill', because it was deemed, they could not handle their financial affairs. That was written with the EXPLICIT Goal of BANNING Firearms. (For the TDS people. One of the FIRST things Trump did was remove it) Honest upstanding people absolutely should have the absolute ability to own a firearm. And crooks, thief's, criminals, felons, terrorists, mental ill, should NOT. Not a problem identifying who are, crooks, thief's,etc, by past behavior. The challenge is, who will/could, be one in the future ? And are ALL, Honest upstanding people, to give up their Freedom, Just because, 'that', person, 'Maybe bad', 'because, 'she', said so? |
|
Title: Re: Hmmm, I wonder if there's a lesson here Post by T And T Garage on 09/11/19 at 15:31:10 756A6C6B7671407040786A662D1F0 wrote:
No - not all citizens. Those that are under-age, those that are special needs (mentally) and I'm sure there are other types of restrictions that need to be considered. But as to that particular weapon - no problem at all. |
|
Title: Re: Hmmm, I wonder if there's a lesson here Post by MnSpring on 09/11/19 at 15:33:22 2A353334292E1F2F1F27353972400 wrote:
Would have to include, S&W 10mm, S&W .40, .44 Mag, .45 Colt, .45ACP, .460 S&W, 500 S&W. Because police can, (not often) but they do carry those as well. Oh, what does that 'gang banger' around the corner have ? The GOAL, for the UL, FDS's socialists, is to BAN GUNS, NOT save, or protect lives. |
|
Title: Re: Hmmm, I wonder if there's a lesson here Post by MnSpring on 09/11/19 at 15:39:56 6C727D7C716C776A180 wrote:
Thought you were 'Educated' !!!!!!!! What part of the underlined portion below, do you not understand. 756A6C6B7671407040786A662D1F0 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Hmmm, I wonder if there's a lesson here Post by T And T Garage on 09/11/19 at 15:56:04 0625183B3922252C4B0 wrote:
Thought you were 'Educated' !!!!!!!! What part of the underlined portion below, do you not understand. 756A6C6B7671407040786A662D1F0 wrote:
[/quote] I understand all of it, mn. When I say "Those that are under-age" I'm talking about those under 21. Unless they are in the Armed Forces, I think gun ownership should be restricted to 21 and older. Legal adulthood in most states is 18. So, you can stop trying to make yourself look smart... that will just never happen. Bless your heart. |
|
Title: Re: Hmmm, I wonder if there's a lesson here Post by raydawg on 09/11/19 at 16:09:44 6744795A5843444D2A0 wrote:
True. The problem is, that is NOT the goal for the people that want to write the laws. Take a 'red' law. (Where anyone can 'tell on' anyone) A girlfriend, a neighbor, someone who just doesn't like the way you look, 'can', say, "Hey that person .....". Then, 'that' person has all their guns taken away ! Yes, 'red' laws are good, if they are written well. Not written with the Goal, of JUST removing firearms. Like the, 'law' Obama wrote. Where Mom/Pop sold everything, bought a motor-home, and are traveling around the country. Because each week they are in a different place, they 'assigned' a trusted person/child/etc, to take over their financial affairs, to pay their bills. Under Obama, they were, 'Mentally Ill', because it was deemed, they could not handle their financial affairs. That was written with the EXPLICIT Goal of BANNING Firearms. (For the TDS people. One of the FIRST things Trump did was remove it) Honest upstanding people absolutely should have the absolute ability to own a firearm. And crooks, thief's, criminals, felons, terrorists, mental ill, should NOT. Not a problem identifying who are, crooks, thief's,etc, by past behavior. The challenge is, who will/could, be one in the future ? And are ALL, Honest upstanding people, to give up their Freedom, Just because, 'that', person, 'Maybe bad', 'because, 'she', said so? [/quote] Buddy, we have so much more we can tap into in finding ways to keep the right to a gun, and to protecting those who choose not to pack. Its not a all, or nothing, equation.... And we can't let the failures of the past, look how many gun laws, hell, all laws, that are still broken and NOT honored..... We have new technology, example, go online and try to buy something with a fake credit card #. It takes but mere seconds to decline that transaction. This has to be available to law enforcement too, or some form like it.... Like a sobriety check point, yes, it can be a inconvenience, but if it saves lives, isn't that what a responsible society should encourage....? You get caught, guess what, you were breaking the law, do NOT tell me about probable cause limitations, we are taking pro-active measures for the betterment and safety of others.... It gives them a right to check your breath, not whats in your trunk, etc... |
|
Title: Re: Hmmm, I wonder if there's a lesson here Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/11/19 at 16:35:47 Just answer the question. I accept the caveats. Law abiding, ADULTS, not hindered by any law from owning a pistol. NOW can they carry? |
|
Title: Re: Hmmm, I wonder if there's a lesson here Post by MnSpring on 09/11/19 at 17:24:24 51425A47425444230 wrote:
Yep, and that is not a problem. You are drinking and driving, or not. That’s it ! Their is no, ‘Well you could be drinking, and you could be driving” "...It takes but mere seconds to decline that transaction..." “We have the technology to build a Six Million Dollar Man” The current Background check, (which the UL FDS Socialists cry and lie that their is none) IS, instant. Can it have better reporting to it, sure, but their is no penalty to the LEO’s for Not reporting to it. Also, when a Felon or some sort of deviant, apples for a firearm, ALL their info is on the 4437, including their DL number. and when they are refused, NOTHING IS DONE NOTHING. Suggest fixing that problem, before the, Ban a gun, Ban a Clip, Ban a round, Ban a ….. kicks in for the UL FDS Socialists, who Really want to BAN GUNS, not, save lives. |
|
Title: Re: Hmmm, I wonder if there's a lesson here Post by Eegore on 09/11/19 at 18:46:15 "Like the, 'law' Obama wrote. Where Mom/Pop sold everything, bought a motor-home, and are traveling around the country. Because each week they are in a different place, they 'assigned' a trusted person/child/etc, to take over their financial affairs, to pay their bills. Under Obama, they were, 'Mentally Ill', because it was deemed, they could not handle their financial affairs. That was written with the EXPLICIT Goal of BANNING Firearms. (For the TDS people. One of the FIRST things Trump did was remove it)" You have a reference for this? My interpretation, based off of case law practiced in the US is that the designation of Mentally Ill must be provided by a licensed healthcare provider after a consultation. Mom and pop travelling around giving power of finance or even power of attorney to their children would not be an acceptable categorization of mental instability according to the NIH, NAMI and DSM-5. Anyone assigning a psychological detraction to someone on the basis of only have assigned someone to control their finances is not only unethical, its illegal. https://psychiatryonline.org/guidelines I call "Spin" on this one. At a minimum its a gun scare tactic. |
|
Title: Re: Hmmm, I wonder if there's a lesson here Post by MnSpring on 09/11/19 at 20:04:41 6545474F5245200 wrote:
"... based on a finding that the individual's mental impairment meets or medically equals the requirements of section 12.00 of the Listing of Impairments (Listings) and receipt of benefits through a representative payee. We will provide pertinent information about these individuals to the Attorney General on not less than a quarterly basis. As required by the NIAA, at the commencement of the adjudication process we will also notify individuals, both orally and in writing, of their possible Federal prohibition on possessing or receiving firearms,..." "...To reiterate, we will report an individual's record to the NICS based on his or her inability to manage his or her affairs due to a disabling mental impairment that meets or equals the criteria found in one of the Mental Disorders Listings. A criminal background check is not necessary for us to make a determination on that issue...." "... lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs..." "...Act. 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44. Adjudicated as a mental defective. (a) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs...." "...determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority..." https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/19/2016-30407/implementation-of-the-nics-improvement-amendments-act-of-2007 "...a push to include information from the Social Security Administration in the background check system, ensuring that those who are legally barred from owning firearms (individuals prohibited from buying guns because, due to a mental health issue, they are a danger to themselves or others or are unable to manage their own affairs)..." https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/what-obamas-gun-control-announcement-means-for-195057668.html "... What's True - A new Social Security Administration rule would add Social Security disability recipients who have been deemed unable to manage their own affairs to the federal background check system for gun purchases. ..." https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/social-security-recipients-barred-from-owning-guns/ Here is a good explanation. https://www.factcheck.org/2019/08/what-republicans-did-on-mental-health-guns/ Here is the KEY: "...as someone found by a “court, board, commission, or other lawful authority..." Describe the three, 'people', that are underlined. And I could go on and have a 100 more. The point is. Gun Banners, will do anything and everything they can do, In the, 'NAME of', Saving lives, to BAN GUNS ! |
|
Title: Re: Hmmm, I wonder if there's a lesson here Post by Eegore on 09/11/19 at 20:44:31 ""... lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs..."" Going on a road trip does not qualify. That's a choice. Mom and Pop do not "lack" anything, they have the "capacity" but choose not to. The mom and pop example is not correct. They do not meet the very guideline you posted in red: based on his or her inability to manage his or her affairs due to a disabling mental impairment They have the ability. T hey are able, and as such are not part of the category of individuals considered unable to manage his or her affairs. If you can provide hundreds of examples why fabricate one that isn't even applicable? |
|
Title: Re: Hmmm, I wonder if there's a lesson here Post by MnSpring on 09/12/19 at 08:27:00 7454565E4354310 wrote:
A, ‘road trip', has nothing to do with the Back Door, Gun Banning Obama wanted. By, Saying someone who has no permanent address, and has their check/disability/etc sent to a permanent address, and given a person power over that, and other moneys, to pay their bills. Which is often a Durable Power of Attorney, and or a Health Directive. Add a LOT of people, who could deem the travelers, as Mentally deficient. You have a very effective back door Gun Banning. Same as the failed, back door Gun Banning, attempt by Obama to Pressure Banks, and Credit Card companies, to NOT, do business with ANYBODY that sells Firearms. This was difficult to do with big places, like Cabala's, Bass Pro Shops etc. Yet very, VERY easy to do with small shops that JUST sold Firearms and Ammo. And the BIG, failed attempt, by Obama and Holder, to BAN GUNS, called, ‘Fast and Furious’. All that accomplished, was KILL US Citizens, and Obama/Holder, were held totally harmless. |
|
Title: Re: Hmmm, I wonder if there's a lesson here Post by Eegore on 09/12/19 at 10:43:33 "By, Saying someone who has no permanent address, and has their check/disability/etc sent to a permanent address, and given a person power over that, and other moneys, to pay their bills. Which is often a Durable Power of Attorney, and or a Health Directive. Add a LOT of people, who could deem the travelers, as Mentally deficient." That is very incorrect. A LOT of people can not deem those travelers "Mentally deficient" because they have no permanent address, have a Durable power of Attorney or because they have any given Health Directive. One can not, as in it's illegal, deem travelers "Mentally Deficient" based off of decisions made by choice, that are due to the choice of traveling. That's illegal. You are literally just imagining a scenario to justify some outlandish gun ban concept that could not legally be put into practice. I'd call that "Spin" The rest of what you say is moderately accurate and reasonable, but this part of people considered mentally ill because they travel, and have made appropriate arrangements, is very, very inaccurate. |
|
Title: Re: Hmmm, I wonder if there's a lesson here Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/12/19 at 11:28:43 I'm seeing that quote is Bullshit, but the idea is still a point for discussion. So, what would it take for you lefties to agree to ALLOW the average person to be able to be armed in order to protect themselves? |
|
Title: Re: Hmmm, I wonder if there's a lesson here Post by thumperclone on 09/13/19 at 15:40:33 6D7274736E6958685860727E35070 wrote:
do you consider yourself an "average person" ? who is to decide? who will enforce? how to enforce? "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" if we STOP dealing in extremes (limiting magazine capacity?) maybe we can have a true discussion instead of a name calling, mud slinging, tantrum.. jog you say you want to discuss but are the first to start with the insults.. MAYBE this time could be different :question |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |