Oregon passes gun control bill aimed at keeping weapons from stalkers and abusers - Page 2 - Graybeard Outdoors
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #11 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-29-2019, 05:54 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 217
Default

OK, this isn't about 'them taking our guns', or another commie plot or any other crap like that. This is a worthwhile effort to reduce gun violence against, mostly, women. Check your statistics (that means check the statistics), whether you agree with the source or not (more commie false news probably) but more than 50% of mass shootings or domestic violence shootings are committed by stalkers (with records of stalking) and domestic/spousal abusers (also with records). You don't want them stopped before they can hurt someone. What the **** is the matter with you?
So, if you want to reduce gun violence against women where the hay are you going to start, or aren't you. Are those who have suffered from domestic violence of so little importance to you that you do not care or even consider to look at the causes, and then think far enough ahead to consider that if someone does not do something then the most draconian laws, like this one which really isn't unfocused, will pass.

Every law passed so far has failed to consider gun ownership and the histories of stalkers and domestic abusers, or the mentally ill. These basis for these laws simply relate guns and violence and the obvious answer is that to reduce violence you have to reduce the number of guns these people have. If you start with stalkers and abusers you can prevent nearly 50% of the domestic violence crimes but, do any of us ever say anything except that 'they wanna take our guns' or 'it's another commie plot'? Does anyone ever think far enough ahead to see that if we (capital We) don't do something ourselves we are going to lose.
Oh right, forgot! Many elected Sheriffs won't follow the law and come for our guns. In nys, it is 57 of 62 Sheriffs who said they don't/won't, etc., but if you believe that then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you, or that herr frau von klinton is totally innocent of her crimes.

Oh yeah, domestic abusers - what percentage are cops? Some statistics say as many as 40% of domestic abuse and violence cases are committed by police officers.

I firmly believe that if you want to reduce the number of mass shootings you must absolutely consider histories of stalking and domestic violence, as well as mental illness, and if you take the guns from those people you have a start. Also, look at domestic violence and then mass shootings and who commits those crimes - mostly white males under the age of 25, some may be a tad older, but with a history of behaviors, verbal statements, face book posts and often police records. So there's a start. Many of these people are refused gun ownership through the background check process, over 300,000 last year I believe, so that is a start but many either already own firearms or get them from people and places that do not commit background checks.

Also, since you cannot obtain mental health records, which you don't need, you can always run addresses of psychotropic drug prescription users (mental patients, depressed individuals, etc.,) against the known addresses of registered gun owners, domestic abusers, stalkers and see if there are any guns some sick little Johnny with a history of posting or making violent statements has in or near his home. Oops sorry, that getting too close for some of you?

Here's the bottom line - either we support smart measures or we all lose. Why aren't we screaming that every woman should have a gun for personal protection? What the **** are you scared of, that girls will have guns and might shoot back? That we can't bully or watch someone being bullied because they have guns and we might get hurt.

Guns are like cars, they are dangerous in the wrong hands and kill more people than guns do. You have to have a license for both, in many states, and you have to be retested, and we go through it all with a minimum of complaint. If you dwi, you lose your license, or you should so you don't drive drunk and kill someone. Same with guns. There is little difference between a lead footed drunk and a whizzed off drunk with a gun, something bad is liable to happen but for some reason we don't want to look at or make enough of a effort to do something preventative about it.

So, what you get is laws like this. The more you retreat from the reality that something must be done the greater will be your/our loss. You can either propose something effective and worthwhile, or you can just shut the **** up. This might be a case of put up or shut up. Take a gal to the range, teach your daughters how to shoot, demand the police arm women. I really don't care what, as long as you do something.
Bad Mike is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-29-2019, 10:02 PM
Senior Member
 
ironglow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: rural southwestern N.Y. State
Posts: 41,092
Default

I think you can move firearms through New York..but in any case.. travelling through New York state..stay away from New York City environs..they are jerks down there.
check this link, scroll down to "transporting firearms through New York"..there is further information below that .

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/newyork.pdf

.

"Politically correct" language, is really Orwellian 'newspeak'. (Michael Cutler)
.

Last edited by ironglow; 05-29-2019 at 10:10 PM.
ironglow is offline  
post #13 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-30-2019, 04:04 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 9,584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad Mike View Post
OK, this isn't about 'them taking our guns', or another commie plot or any other crap like that. This is a worthwhile effort to reduce gun violence against, mostly, women. Check your statistics (that means check the statistics), whether you agree with the source or not (more commie false news probably) but more than 50% of mass shootings or domestic violence shootings are committed by stalkers (with records of stalking) and domestic/spousal abusers (also with records). You don't want them stopped before they can hurt someone. What the **** is the matter with you?
So, if you want to reduce gun violence against women where the hay are you going to start, or aren't you. Are those who have suffered from domestic violence of so little importance to you that you do not care or even consider to look at the causes, and then think far enough ahead to consider that if someone does not do something then the most draconian laws, like this one which really isn't unfocused, will pass.

Every law passed so far has failed to consider gun ownership and the histories of stalkers and domestic abusers, or the mentally ill. These basis for these laws simply relate guns and violence and the obvious answer is that to reduce violence you have to reduce the number of guns these people have. If you start with stalkers and abusers you can prevent nearly 50% of the domestic violence crimes but, do any of us ever say anything except that 'they wanna take our guns' or 'it's another commie plot'? Does anyone ever think far enough ahead to see that if we (capital We) don't do something ourselves we are going to lose.
Oh right, forgot! Many elected Sheriffs won't follow the law and come for our guns. In nys, it is 57 of 62 Sheriffs who said they don't/won't, etc., but if you believe that then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you, or that herr frau von klinton is totally innocent of her crimes.

Oh yeah, domestic abusers - what percentage are cops? Some statistics say as many as 40% of domestic abuse and violence cases are committed by police officers.

I firmly believe that if you want to reduce the number of mass shootings you must absolutely consider histories of stalking and domestic violence, as well as mental illness, and if you take the guns from those people you have a start. Also, look at domestic violence and then mass shootings and who commits those crimes - mostly white males under the age of 25, some may be a tad older, but with a history of behaviors, verbal statements, face book posts and often police records. So there's a start. Many of these people are refused gun ownership through the background check process, over 300,000 last year I believe, so that is a start but many either already own firearms or get them from people and places that do not commit background checks.

Also, since you cannot obtain mental health records, which you don't need, you can always run addresses of psychotropic drug prescription users (mental patients, depressed individuals, etc.,) against the known addresses of registered gun owners, domestic abusers, stalkers and see if there are any guns some sick little Johnny with a history of posting or making violent statements has in or near his home. Oops sorry, that getting too close for some of you?

Here's the bottom line - either we support smart measures or we all lose. Why aren't we screaming that every woman should have a gun for personal protection? What the **** are you scared of, that girls will have guns and might shoot back? That we can't bully or watch someone being bullied because they have guns and we might get hurt.

Guns are like cars, they are dangerous in the wrong hands and kill more people than guns do. You have to have a license for both, in many states, and you have to be retested, and we go through it all with a minimum of complaint. If you dwi, you lose your license, or you should so you don't drive drunk and kill someone. Same with guns. There is little difference between a lead footed drunk and a whizzed off drunk with a gun, something bad is liable to happen but for some reason we don't want to look at or make enough of a effort to do something preventative about it.

So, what you get is laws like this. The more you retreat from the reality that something must be done the greater will be your/our loss. You can either propose something effective and worthwhile, or you can just shut the **** up. This might be a case of put up or shut up. Take a gal to the range, teach your daughters how to shoot, demand the police arm women. I really don't care what, as long as you do something.
If I'm following you correctly, driver's licenses have reduced vehicular deaths, and if you don't support this bill you're not interested in women's safety and are probably a bully. There's a direct correlation between the number of guns owned and violence. And we need to do something. Did I capture the essence of your argument?

Last edited by teamnelson; 05-30-2019 at 04:30 AM.
teamnelson is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #14 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-30-2019, 09:14 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 217
Default

Teamnelson: No, not really. I'm simply saying, most likely in a most convoluted way, that if we as gun owners do not do something to help control gun violence we will all lose. The general public will take just so much violence before they demand more restrictive measures to control the violence and both the Oregon law and the neu yawk unsafe act are two examples.

I doubt that the issuance of driver's licenses have reduced vehicular deaths but serious jail time might, if nothing more effective than getting drunk drivers or road rage jerks off the streets, if only for a while and then denying them future licenses.

As to guns, the 'rights' we have to exercise ownership are accompanied by responsibilities and either we set the standard for proper use and enjoyment or we lose to those who fail or refuse to act responsibly. We can't (and don't) go 'cowboy' on the street looking for the bad guys; it is neither our 'right', our job or our responsibility and if you do it's a sure way to lose that right when you run afoul of the law. I do not believe, as do some, that the number of guns, especially those properly owned and used drive the amount of violence we see today. However, the number of firearms improperly used and those used threateningly or violently by stalkers, abusers, gang bangers and criminals drive the public perception for the need of more restrictive laws. I am saying here that the improper use of firearms, as in using them as a weapon or as a threat during a violent domestic situation or during a domestic abuse situation, or just the improper and reckless use of them brings about the public demand for controlling them.

And yes, as responsible gun owners we dang well need to do something about this. Anytime there is a mass shooting or a domestic situation that has garnered public support we need to be the first ones to call for some action to help prevent further situations, not hide from the reality that if we don't, someone else will take the sort of measures that put us all on the defensive.

If politicians and public safety advocates seek background information on gun owners/purchases to assure them that our exercise of our rights will not endanger them then we need to ask for laws that gather enough information to protect us all from those who would abuse the right; and as often is the case, if something more personally draconian (like the review of mental health records or other 'invasions of privacy') is brought forward politicians have a tendency to back peddle to more practical approaches.

I stated above that the majority of mass shootings involve white males under the age of 25 with histories of mental illness and access to firearms whether legally owned or not. The Los Vegas shooter was a exception due to his age but yet he had a mental health history that nobody looked at or considered. He also made multiple purchases in fairly short periods of time that nobody questioned. And how many background checks did he go through, eh?? Very few I believe. When over 50% of stalkers and domestic abusers with guns commit violent acts then we should be the ones to call for inclusion of police and mental health records in the review of a individual's desires for firearms ownership. As it stands now, juvenile records are sealed and health/mental health information is protected under federal privacy laws and I firmly believe that had those histories been included in the review of ownership/possession in such a manner as to pinpoint afflicted individuals and their proximity to firearms, situations like the Newton, Conn. elementary school massacre could have been prevented. The same goes for the mass shooting at the Florida gay nightclub - the shooter had posted extensively about that but nobody listened or considered the correlation of stated hatred, firearms possession and the stated desire to commit harmful acts.

I also believe that the very perception by the general public of 'not caring' about women's safety leads the public to possibly think that gun owners are indeed bullies as in 'hey, you better watch what you say to me because I own a gun' or even worse, 'if you hadn't dressed like that you wouldn't have been stalked, attacked and abused'. Stalkers don't really care what you dress like, it is simply their perception that they can do what they want without concern or thought to their actions, and they want you (or their intended victims). Abusers victimize because they can, they have the either the emotional or physical power or they own something intimidating and can use it.

Gang bangers and organized crime, drive-by shootings are issues for police response. The use of appropriate background information to decide on firearms ownership or possession is necessary for us (legal gun owners) to enjoy our rights without being included with that group of criminals and in this regard I see no reason why juvenile records and mental health histories should not be included in a review of a individual's desire to own and posses firearms. At least this way we know that those most responsible will exercise that right properly and safely.

I know you to be a responsible gun owner (you most likely would not be here if you weren't), a veteran and family man. I am certain you would pass any background check anyone could devise. You may not always agree with your family members on some issue but you don't threaten them with your guns or pistol whip your children into submissive obedience but there are others, many others who would and do. You don't follow your neighbor Mohammed around the neighborhood at night because he's a Muslim and you think he's evil or something but there are many who would. Do you want to be lumped into the same pile of garbage as that? I don't think so, you are a responsible gun owner.
Just sayin'.....
Bad Mike is offline  
post #15 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-30-2019, 11:24 AM
Senior Member
 
ironglow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: rural southwestern N.Y. State
Posts: 41,092
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad Mike View Post
Teamnelson: No, not really. I'm simply saying, most likely in a most convoluted way, that if we as gun owners do not do something to help control gun violence we will all lose. The general public will take just so much violence before they demand more restrictive measures to control the violence and both the Oregon law and the neu yawk unsafe act are two examples.

I doubt that the issuance of driver's licenses have reduced vehicular deaths but serious jail time might, if nothing more effective than getting drunk drivers or road rage jerks off the streets, if only for a while and then denying them future licenses.

As to guns, the 'rights' we have to exercise ownership are accompanied by responsibilities and either we set the standard for proper use and enjoyment or we lose to those who fail or refuse to act responsibly. We can't (and don't) go 'cowboy' on the street looking for the bad guys; it is neither our 'right', our job or our responsibility and if you do it's a sure way to lose that right when you run afoul of the law. I do not believe, as do some, that the number of guns, especially those properly owned and used drive the amount of violence we see today. However, the number of firearms improperly used and those used threateningly or violently by stalkers, abusers, gang bangers and criminals drive the public perception for the need of more restrictive laws. I am saying here that the improper use of firearms, as in using them as a weapon or as a threat during a violent domestic situation or during a domestic abuse situation, or just the improper and reckless use of them brings about the public demand for controlling them.

And yes, as responsible gun owners we dang well need to do something about this. Anytime there is a mass shooting or a domestic situation that has garnered public support we need to be the first ones to call for some action to help prevent further situations, not hide from the reality that if we don't, someone else will take the sort of measures that put us all on the defensive.

If politicians and public safety advocates seek background information on gun owners/purchases to assure them that our exercise of our rights will not endanger them then we need to ask for laws that gather enough information to protect us all from those who would abuse the right; and as often is the case, if something more personally draconian (like the review of mental health records or other 'invasions of privacy') is brought forward politicians have a tendency to back peddle to more practical approaches.

I stated above that the majority of mass shootings involve white males under the age of 25 with histories of mental illness and access to firearms whether legally owned or not. The Los Vegas shooter was a exception due to his age but yet he had a mental health history that nobody looked at or considered. He also made multiple purchases in fairly short periods of time that nobody questioned. And how many background checks did he go through, eh?? Very few I believe. When over 50% of stalkers and domestic abusers with guns commit violent acts then we should be the ones to call for inclusion of police and mental health records in the review of a individual's desires for firearms ownership. As it stands now, juvenile records are sealed and health/mental health information is protected under federal privacy laws and I firmly believe that had those histories been included in the review of ownership/possession in such a manner as to pinpoint afflicted individuals and their proximity to firearms, situations like the Newton, Conn. elementary school massacre could have been prevented. The same goes for the mass shooting at the Florida gay nightclub - the shooter had posted extensively about that but nobody listened or considered the correlation of stated hatred, firearms possession and the stated desire to commit harmful acts.

I also believe that the very perception by the general public of 'not caring' about women's safety leads the public to possibly think that gun owners are indeed bullies as in 'hey, you better watch what you say to me because I own a gun' or even worse, 'if you hadn't dressed like that you wouldn't have been stalked, attacked and abused'. Stalkers don't really care what you dress like, it is simply their perception that they can do what they want without concern or thought to their actions, and they want you (or their intended victims). Abusers victimize because they can, they have the either the emotional or physical power or they own something intimidating and can use it.

Gang bangers and organized crime, drive-by shootings are issues for police response. The use of appropriate background information to decide on firearms ownership or possession is necessary for us (legal gun owners) to enjoy our rights without being included with that group of criminals and in this regard I see no reason why juvenile records and mental health histories should not be included in a review of a individual's desire to own and posses firearms. At least this way we know that those most responsible will exercise that right properly and safely.

I know you to be a responsible gun owner (you most likely would not be here if you weren't), a veteran and family man. I am certain you would pass any background check anyone could devise. You may not always agree with your family members on some issue but you don't threaten them with your guns or pistol whip your children into submissive obedience but there are others, many others who would and do. You don't follow your neighbor Mohammed around the neighborhood at night because he's a Muslim and you think he's evil or something but there are many who would. Do you want to be lumped into the same pile of garbage as that? I don't think so, you are a responsible gun owner.
Just sayin'.....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Congratulations on your erudition Bad Mike, but I cannot congratulate you upon some of your perceptions.

Not wishing to be combative, but hoping to clarify, I have noted in red a couple concerns.

The first concern "gun violence"..we should refuse to use that term, and correct others when they do so. Guns are not in themselves violent, any more than baseball bats, frying pans or butcher knives. all of these kill many people each year...so why should we cave to the leftist insistence that guns commit violent acts?
So gun owners can do a good service by correcting those who use the term..gun violence !


Another concern, when you point out.. "mass shootings involve white males under 25 with histories of mental illness"...Why then are guns blamed when perhaps we may question what kind of mind-bending drugs they were on? Why don't the lefties ask this question?

Do you know how many were shot in Chicago this past weekend? It was a total of 30, likely all shot by black males under 25, without a history of mental illness! So why does the left not pursue these killing just as avidly as they harass legal gun owners? https://chicago.cbslocal.com/tag/weekend-violence/

Next notation.."not caring about women's safety".. I guess we honest gun owners are a bit different than the far left, in that we are concerned with EVERYONE'S safety. That is why I spent years teaching hunter safety classes...everybody bleeds red ! The left is not so concerned with safety as with using women and children to promote their propaganda.

Then.. "any background check anyone could devise". I hope you are not suggesting that we acquiesce to such a thing! Sure, I could also pass any such test..but I don't want any individual politician to have that kind of power over any citizen, since I am confident that Pelosi, Nadler, Schumer or many others could devise a backgound check that would take 12 years to complete !

We are supposed to be a government BY, FOR and OF THE PEOPLE. I for one, am not eager to hand my freedom as outlined by the constitution, over to a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats, whether elected or appointed.

The 'perceptions' many ill-informed people have are wrong, drip-fed into their minds by a crooked "fake news". The best thing we can do is to relieve them of their false perceptions.

You seem ready to take responsibility for what any vengeful lover, addict or spaced out kid does with a gun. I would hope that if you are one who consumes adult beverages, you do not feel responsible for what every drunk driver does..or what every drunken wife-beater does..

I for one, do not feel responsible for what any stalker or Sharia bound nut may do to an innocent woman. Just to put it in perspective, if the lefties are so concerned with women's safety, why then are they not heading up programs to arm women? Just as I said, they are USING women and children as foils !

Watch out..the devious discussions of the Social Democrats can be pernicious.

What more do you think honest gun owners can do to dispel these false notions? frankly Bad Mike, I think a disarmed America is just a stepping stone for the left toward a one-world government. A defenseless society is a helpless society..check with the Venezuelans.

I hope I didn't come off as being rude Mike..but that is one subject that truly riles me up .

.

"Politically correct" language, is really Orwellian 'newspeak'. (Michael Cutler)
.

Last edited by ironglow; 05-30-2019 at 03:16 PM.
ironglow is offline  
post #16 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-30-2019, 05:05 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 9,584
Default

Bad Mike,

Appreciate the clarification. Sadly, no, I would not pass just any background check since the criterion is political in nature, and we have seen under DHS that progressive politics considers me suspect BECAUSE I am a veteran, a combat veteran, a wounded combat veteran, a Christian, a male, a heterosexual, my kids were homeschooled, and my shade of melanin is not in a protected spectrum. According to progressive politics, all of that causes them great concern - they have gone so far as to suggest that simply being a veteran causes mental illness. And my gun ownership and bible use is tied to bitterness ... suppressed rage and fear.

And that is precisely why I am suspect of any background checks - we do not do background checks for mental illness for drivers by the way. If on the day of your exam you can pass the written and driving requirements, you can get a license. There is no waiting period at the car dealer. We are not limited in horsepower (yet) or by arbitrary physical characteristics as to what make and model of car we may buy. And I do not have to fill out a form at the car dealer indicating my arrest record or mental state.

I do not concur that as gun owners we must capitulate on gun regulation in any way. Violence and the tools used are in fact two completely separate issues, and I agree that as a responsible citizen we must work on the problem of violence. But we need to stop being focused on the solution of gun regulation.

Our right to bear arms is tied to the natural law understanding of the right to self defense. Talk to a typical cat lady about having cats declawed - but stay outside arms reach of them! Pay attention to their argumentation: To declaw a cat is to remove their natural ability for self defense. To declaw a cat is to deny them their right to life. People who declaw cats may say they don't need them they are safe in my home, and the claws present a threat to my sense of well being. But, they respond, the cat did not give up its nature when it entered your home, and you cannot guarantee their safety at all times. The cat should be allowed to keep its claws. We do not discriminate between crazy cats, sane cats, mean cats, nice cats, stupid cats, or smart cats. It is their right to self-defense and it is innate to them. If a cat goes rogue and hurts a child with those claws, they are put down. We punish the cat, not the claws, for what the cat does with the claws ... but their right to their claws is not conditional.

So to solve the problem of violence against women, I raise(d) better men; my son/SIL/grandson(s) make women feel safer for having them around. I raise(d) women to own their own safety, be wise in the message they transmit to the world, and to safely and effectively employ the use of tools since they do not have claws.

More people die from gun violence employed by non-white males every single day in just one of our gun-free cities, than in a single school shooting. Women in those cities are targeted for every kind of violence, but not allowed to defend themselves because the gun laws targeting the already non-law abiding are applied to them as well. If you feel passionate about protecting women, why would you deny them the means to defend themselves? But if that woman was ever prescribed an anti-depressant, or sought professional counseling perhaps in the wake of previous violence, would she be allowed to purchase a firearm, while we presume a man could not? That's sexist, and presumes that men cannot be victims. I'm here to tell you, the rate of vicitimhood amongst males is the same (rape, domestic violence, sexual assault) just the culture tells them a man doesn't report, but we have the stats to demonstrate the mantra of "males are perpetrators" is misandrous.

I admire your passion, and agree that violence against anyone is a serious problem. But the solution is so much bigger than gun regulation, and really has little to do with guns. You cannot breed a culture that demands instant gratification, objectifies and identifies people only in the context of sex, and celebrates division at every turn, and expect them to treat each other with respect.

Last edited by teamnelson; 05-30-2019 at 05:08 PM.
teamnelson is offline  
post #17 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-30-2019, 07:12 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 1,939
Default

Bad mike. So you are blaming guns and gun owners? Did I get that right? Our responsibility to make the prey step up to the table?
Mule 11 is offline  
post #18 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-30-2019, 07:16 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 1,939
Default

It is not us that you tell to stfu too that has the problem...
I understand you’re aggression as I am angry too...

Last edited by Mule 11; 05-30-2019 at 07:35 PM.
Mule 11 is offline  
post #19 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-30-2019, 07:24 PM
Senior Member
 
ironglow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: rural southwestern N.Y. State
Posts: 41,092
Default

Bad Mike says..." Oh right, forgot! Many elected Sheriffs won't follow the law and come for our guns. In nys, it is 57 of 62 Sheriffs who said they don't/won't, etc., but if you believe that then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you, or that herr frau von klinton is totally innocent of her crimes. "

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You have to keep current Mike.., this "news" from Sept 2013, right afterderFuehrer signed the bill into law..

https://www.policeone.com/chiefs-she...gazine-limits/

.

"Politically correct" language, is really Orwellian 'newspeak'. (Michael Cutler)
.

Last edited by ironglow; 05-30-2019 at 07:30 PM.
ironglow is offline  
post #20 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-31-2019, 07:48 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 217
Default

IG: in the last 5 years we have had a turnover in Sheriffs and yes, that is old news but not necessarily current. I'm not holding my breath. Some of these Sheriffs are little more than political Ho's, Albany County being one in particular.

None the less: "mass shootings involve white males under 25 with histories of mental illness"...Why then are guns blamed when perhaps we may question what kind of mind-bending drugs they were on? Why don't the lefties ask this question? Lefties will never ask that question but why don't we scream - how could you let mentally ill people get guns. It's not the gun, it's the mentally ill who would use them. How do you plan to control the mentally ill?? Let them answer that.

"not caring about women's safety".. I guess we honest gun owners are a bit different than the far left, in that we are concerned with EVERYONE'S safety. Does anyone ever bother saying that or do we just bury our heads in holes and wait for it to blow over. Why don't we ask instead - why aren't women armed in their own defense? What are they, second class citizens who are not allowed to defend themselves or denied the means to do so? Why are you preventing women from obtaining the necessary means to adequately defend themselves? What do you have against women that you won't allow them to defend themselves? How can mothers defend their children against murderous aggression? Does anyone ever ask that or put that question to public political forums? Doubt it.

"any background check anyone could devise". I hope you are not suggesting that we acquiesce to such a thing! Better than 300,000 times last year background checks denied possession. Are you saying that we should just forget some sort of quality control here. For every sick ticket out there who just wants to kill someone or something we, all of us, get lumped into the same pile of crap and you don't want some control over that? No, I do not take responsibility for the actions of the obviously insane but either we control our own or we will lose it.

The 'perceptions' many ill-informed people have are wrong, drip-fed into their minds by a crooked "fake news". The best thing we can do is to relieve them of their false perceptions. And how do you propose we do that? None of us seem willing to stand up in front of a crowd, group or community meeting and challenge leftist speakers to prove their points or to the community at large for alternatives. No, we just hide and complain.

teamnelson: you said: Sadly, no, I would not pass just any background check since the criterion is political in nature, and we have seen under DHS that progressive politics considers me suspect BECAUSE I am a veteran, a combat veteran, a wounded combat veteran, a Christian, a male, a heterosexual, my kids were homeschooled, and my shade of melanin is not in a protected spectrum. According to progressive politics, all of that causes them great concern - they have gone so far as to suggest that simply being a veteran causes mental illness. And my gun ownership and bible use is tied to bitterness ... suppressed rage and fear. Uh buddy, there is no federal policy to this effect at all. Progressive politics considers, and that's as far as it goes. It is just consideration by leftists, there is absolutely no federal policy here involved at all. If you take your children to a hospital for treatment and some fat social worker questions you about gun ownership and says it's federal policy that she ask you that then demand to see the federal law or policy - it does not exist, period. Any questions about that are based solely on insurance company thoughts or individual hospital policy, there is absolutely no federal policy to that effect and you do not have to answer any question like that at all.

they have gone so far as to suggest that simply being a veteran causes mental illness. Yep, sure have but what happened to that - they wound up eating a mouthful of their own crap and that never went anywhere. You can not confuse some politician's 'considerations' with any federal policy. What you have spoken to smacks of such discrimination by the federal government that it is untenable, which is why no such federal policy exists. Of course it was one of those greasy leftist commie faggots, probably who probably entered this country illegally and spouts heresy and never uses birth control so his or her children will forever be supported by a free society who suggested it, but THERE IS NO SUCH FEDERAL POLICY OR LAW, PERIOD.

More people die from gun violence employed by non-white males every single day in just one of our gun-free cities, than in a single school shooting. Women in those cities are targeted for every kind of violence, but not allowed to defend themselves because the gun laws targeting the already non-law abiding are applied to them as well. This is true and to show you the hypocrisy of all the leftist efforts, nobody gives a darn about individual murders, it's about the mass school and church shootings, those things that make a big splash. And does anyone ask why women who are targeted cannot own guns to defend themselves? Does anyone even bother to ask the women about that?

The issue is not all those individual shootings or stabbings, no matter how they tally. The issue is more about the furor over mass shootings and the effects they have. The public display of blood and gore in large amounts against innocent victims is a trigger for political policy. If you can put an end to or at least reduce its frequency of mass shootings then you will see that the 'individual situations' don't matter that much to a lot of people, even leftists; even in chicago where they now have a gay mayor who advocates for peace and luv, unless the tally starts rising to national embarrassment.

But we have to do something, even if it is advocate for transparency of the most draconian practices the leftists protect, like mental health records, privacy issues, sexual preferences, voting registration, family background, citizenship status. These are issues that leftists demand protection for but these might well be some of the considerations we should raise to counter the all or nothing policy they propose.

It isn't that Juan, a illegal immigrant deported thrice murdered Juanita and her two babies while a drug addict, it is that leftists don't want to consider either his illegal status or the murders, just his need for drug use intervention and this is what we must counter, the intentional misdirection of the focus on necessary actions.
Bad Mike is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Graybeard Outdoors forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome