Ummm, what?
NRA: Trading something for nothing isn't compromise.
- Thread starter F4GIB
- Start date
- Status
Black Prince
Member
Today I got an e-mail survey from "Polling Point" that takes surveys on many things. I get one about once a month. Today it was about how to prevent more incidents like the VT shootings. I told them that cops get shot and killed every day. They are armed, wear bullet retarding vests, and have defensive training. John Hinkley shot President Reagan despite all of the highly trained Secret Service men sourrounding him. If cops can't not prevent themselves from being shot, and the Secret Service can not prevent presidents from being shot, whatinhell does anyone think they are going to do to prevent it from happening having none of the specialized training given cops and the Secret Service? The correct answer is NOT A DAM THING!!!
But there are all sorts of people floating all sorts of ideas out there and they all say it is to prevent more killings. They may whiz on your leg and tell you it is raining, but I know better. The reason they want this mental stuff to prevent anyone from having a firearm is nothing less than just ONE MORE way to prevent you from owning a firearm and THAT is the real goal.
If Cho had been turned in by the doctors and his mental status had been in NICS, does anyone here really think that he would simply have stopped his plan to kill people because he could not obtain a firearm legally? Is it not also illegal to kill 31 people? What in the world makes anyone think a law would have stopped Cho? NOTHING would have stopped Cho. He could have simply rented a car and drove it into a crowd of students at VT. Would his mental records have been checked before Avis rented him a car? Or better yet, he could have rented a big U-Haul truck and used it as a weapon. Does U-Haul check mental status before renting trucks?
The weapon used should not be the focus and if it had not been a firearm, it wouldn't be. Does anyone here believe if Cho had used a U-Haul truck that we would have this call for a new law or to "do something?" If he had used a truck, we would have had the "it's a tradegy" statements from all the usual suspects and it would have been over in a day or two. It is ONLY because Cho used a firearm that this issue has gone on and on. THAT is because the agenda is to BAN ALL FIREARMS and that is what this is all about. The liberals don't give a fig about the mentally ill. It is just a weapon to be used against us and if it is made into law, it will be there for any future administration like say Hilary Clinton, to use against you. If her attorney general thinks the law means something the law does not say, do you think for one minute it would make any difference? Ask those at Waco or Ruby Ridge about that.
This mental business is going to be abused and used against all of us if it gets through. Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teen aged boys. DON'T DO IT!!! I'll take my chances with the mental nuts getting guns, but you don't stand a chance against what your government did at Waco and Ruby Ridge.
But there are all sorts of people floating all sorts of ideas out there and they all say it is to prevent more killings. They may whiz on your leg and tell you it is raining, but I know better. The reason they want this mental stuff to prevent anyone from having a firearm is nothing less than just ONE MORE way to prevent you from owning a firearm and THAT is the real goal.
If Cho had been turned in by the doctors and his mental status had been in NICS, does anyone here really think that he would simply have stopped his plan to kill people because he could not obtain a firearm legally? Is it not also illegal to kill 31 people? What in the world makes anyone think a law would have stopped Cho? NOTHING would have stopped Cho. He could have simply rented a car and drove it into a crowd of students at VT. Would his mental records have been checked before Avis rented him a car? Or better yet, he could have rented a big U-Haul truck and used it as a weapon. Does U-Haul check mental status before renting trucks?
The weapon used should not be the focus and if it had not been a firearm, it wouldn't be. Does anyone here believe if Cho had used a U-Haul truck that we would have this call for a new law or to "do something?" If he had used a truck, we would have had the "it's a tradegy" statements from all the usual suspects and it would have been over in a day or two. It is ONLY because Cho used a firearm that this issue has gone on and on. THAT is because the agenda is to BAN ALL FIREARMS and that is what this is all about. The liberals don't give a fig about the mentally ill. It is just a weapon to be used against us and if it is made into law, it will be there for any future administration like say Hilary Clinton, to use against you. If her attorney general thinks the law means something the law does not say, do you think for one minute it would make any difference? Ask those at Waco or Ruby Ridge about that.
This mental business is going to be abused and used against all of us if it gets through. Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teen aged boys. DON'T DO IT!!! I'll take my chances with the mental nuts getting guns, but you don't stand a chance against what your government did at Waco and Ruby Ridge.
Is there anyone out there who truly believes it was a good thing that Mr. Cho was able to buy weapons because the NICS database did not include his mental health disqualifier?
How about instead of focusing on whether or not Cho could have bought a firearm, we focus instead on allowing CHLers to pack in class and on campus?
Cho would have killed people even if he was denied a handgun purchase.
How about instead of focusing on whether or not Cho could have bought a firearm, we focus instead on allowing CHLers to pack in class and on campus?
Cho would have killed people even if he was denied a handgun purchase.
heypete[/quote said:
It's legal in my state to shoot five or more Indians (that is, Native Americans) crossing the river, and 3 or more Indians in Sturgis is considered a War Party and grounds for shooting as well. Nobody obeys these laws, because they're stupid and would harm innocent people.
Just because it's a law does not mean it is right. It is the duty and obligation of a moral man to disobey unjust laws just as he obeys just ones.
Yep. A sharp sword in an enclosed area will kill and maim people just as quickly as a pistol - if not moreso, if he were to manage to get them into the hallway with the assistance of a smoke bomb or three.
I personally have no problems with NICS checks for such things, HOWEVER! there is a huge problem because a person can be committed for damn near anything, and the health care 'professionals' more often than not seem to characterize anything male (aggression, not talking about emotions, terseness, etc.) as being 'ill' - and wanting guns is the very definition of mental illness.
I just wish we'd use a more common sense, communal approach, honestly. I don't know what that approach would be in today's society, but I imagine in former years that they may have said, "do not fail to prevent Mr. John Wilkins from bearing arms; he is f*cking nuts, sir, and is not fit to do so."
Also consider: if Cho wasn't "fit to buy guns" he wasn't fit to vote (whether he did or not is another question).
- Status