The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Never said she deserved to die. One plays stupid games, they're probably going to win stupid prizes - even though many don't deserve it. I still stand by my advice, that in HER particular case, given the fact that he was still around and there was no conceal carry permit approved, she probably should have retreated and laid low until things boiled over and then improved.



I see you conveniently ignored that NJ still has a basic castle doctrine and she can own a gun IN her home and if he came in her house with the intent of stabbing her to death, she could have shot him and gotten out clean. Where was this? Wasn't she killed in her home? The conceal permit only helps when you are outside your home in a public place.

And it does happen...

http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2016/02/woman_accidentally_shoots_hers.html

Heard a noise and had a toddler with her in the motel room. "Birmingham police Sgt. Rebecca Herrera said the woman was in the motel room when she thought she heard a noise. She grabbed her gun that was under her pillow, and somehow shot herself in the chest."


As for the mental health stuff, how about previous diagnosis and treatments that are still on going? Problem also is it's on the family members of the mental-sick individuals too. Too many of live in denial mode and allow unfettered access, when perhaps that's not the best thing.
Click to expand...

If she can't get a gun what the hell good is castle doctrine? How does that protect her as she goes about her daily life. Again you blame the victim. Like the anti gun version of "if you didn't want to get raped you shouldn't have dressed that way."

Again previous diagnoses is on the form, backed up by force of law of five years imprisonment. It's not on law abiding gun owners that state and federal governments either fail to report that status of being previously committed to mental care or that the federal government chooses not to charge anyone 99.9% of the time they violate the 4733 process. So where does a more robust process put any sort of impact on the end user when the government chooses not to enforce it.

The question to you is how do you predict violent behavior with no previously established trends. That's the problem with the legislation you are proposing. You can't just accurately evaluate and say pass/fail somebody will or won't be violent later on. Again we have decades of mental health evaluation use in predicting criminal rehabilitation and likelihood to commit crimes based on known factors and we can't get better than 50/50 odds. And more importantly to do so and rule on the side of restriction goes directly against the principles of Liberty, where we essentially reverse ourselves into a guilty until proven innocent model.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
TUCKnTRUCK said:
I've got a new game. Every time I feel like jumping in this thread to point out flaws in legislative ideas, I buy a gun instead. If I post anyways, I have to give it back.

Game on!
Click to expand...
You need to give them to a current non gun owner. Spread it around

I decided I would donate to a pro 2A group if I engage in these threads again. Each post, $25. Any favorites?
 
Lawman said:
If she can't get a gun what the hell good is castle doctrine? How does that protect her as she goes about her daily life. Again you blame the victim. Like the anti gun version of "if you didn't want to get raped you shouldn't have dressed that way."

Again previous diagnoses is on the form, backed up by force of law of five years imprisonment. It's not on law abiding gun owners that state and federal governments either fail to report that status of being previously committed to mental care or that the federal government chooses not to charge anyone 99.9% of the time they violate the 4733 process. So where does a more robust process put any sort of impact on the end user when the government chooses not to enforce it.

The question to you is how do you predict violent behavior with no previously established trends. That's the problem with the legislation you are proposing. You can't just accurately evaluate and say pass/fail somebody will or won't be violent later on. Again we have decades of mental health evaluation use in predicting criminal rehabilitation and likelihood to commit crimes based on known factors and we can't get better than 50/50 odds. And more importantly to do so and rule on the side of restriction goes directly against the principles of Liberty, where we essentially reverse ourselves into a guilty until proven innocent model.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Was she waiting for the handgun purchase permit to be approved, OR, the conceal carry application? I'm not sure of which she was waiting on. But keep in mind, the handgun purchase permit is (obviously) only for handguns in NJ. She could have bought a (legal) long rifle or shotgun and gotten it much faster than a handgun. Certain shotguns would do just fine for home self defense. Did she? If not, why not? There are questions to this case I don't have the answers to, but to say that she is dead because of the State of New Jersey's actions is a little inaccurate.

I don't know the answer to the question you asked in the 2nd paragraph. But at least THAT is a healthy discussion. Thank you for that. At least we see eye to eye occasionally :)

I don't know what to say, except I guess I would take even a 50/50 odds today versus a nearly 0 / 100 currently for mental health.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Was she waiting for the handgun purchase permit to be approved, OR, the conceal carry application? I'm not sure of which she was waiting on. But keep in mind, the handgun purchase permit is (obviously) only for handguns in NJ. She could have bought a (legal) long rifle or shotgun and gotten it much faster than a handgun. Certain shotguns would do just fine for home self defense. Did she? If not, why not? There are questions to this case I don't have the answers to, but to say that she is dead because of the State of New Jersey's actions is a little inaccurate.

I don't know the answer to the question you asked in the 2nd paragraph. But at least THAT is a healthy discussion. Thank you for that. At least we see eye to eye occasionally :)

I don't know what to say, except I guess I would take even a 50/50 odds today versus a nearly 0 / 100 currently for mental health.
Click to expand...

Well Joe Biden, no a double barrel shotgun isn't "all you need." Face it, the laws intent was not met here. It's supposed to protect New Jersey citizens from violent crimes committed by guns, so her ex just murdered her who was forced to remain unarmed with a knife.

And if I get this straight you are admitting you have no solution to the fact that the system you want to put in place isn't possible. That hasn't apparently stopped you from demanding it as "common sense" or whatever label the anti gun crowd wants to use today/tomorrow to achieve their real goal... Total disarmament. Forget that it's an amendment in the bill of rights and all that.

Got any other rights you think we should just default give up for half the citizens in this country out of irrational and statistically negligible fear?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Cazadores said:
You need to give them to a current non gun owner. Spread it around

I decided I would donate to a pro 2A group if I engage in these threads again. Each post, $25. Any favorites?
Click to expand...
If you donate it to me, I promise to use it to acquire a firearm and help my wife to learn to use it. :D
 
Derg said:
I don't think Joe Biden is going to read this thread.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you were being sarcastic or not, but it was a reference to Uncle Joe's dumb speech on all you need is a shotgun (not to mention people getting arrested for actually following his asinine advice to fire off warning shots).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
pete2800 said:
If you donate it to me, I promise to use it to acquire a firearm and help my wife to learn to use it. :D
Click to expand...
I suppose you're right. I'm a a favorite of me, problem is it's a conflict of interest.

What would you buy with my money, if I had it to give?
 
Cazadores said:
I suppose you're right. I'm a a favorite of me, problem is it's a conflict of interest.

What would you buy with my money, if I had it to give?
Click to expand...
Nah, I'm just playing... I'm ordering a DDI AK whenever their non-folding models are back in stock. Hopefully next week some time. Then shortly after that, a concealed carry gun is in my future. The new PPS looks nice.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
That outlier becomes a hard to compute because the same person can legally own, legally use many firearm. Even this Michigan shooter had 11 guns (at last news media report). What's the stat, that only 37%ish of Americans own guns, but ones that do own them, own them in huge numbers.
Click to expand...

Who the F are you to decide how many guns I can own? Either push your agenda, total disarming or don't. Don't • around the bush to try to keep the FUDDS on your side.
 
Lawman said:
According to some people if we get rid of them all those murders/suicides wouldn't happen so they must be playing some part in the decision process right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

What about Bridges? What about our beloved bridge systems across the country? What about our rivers and streams that drown those people that jump from bridges? Are we about to rid ourselves of bridges and river systems too?
 
This conversation:


dog-chasing-tail-o.gif
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Just pointing out a fact on gun ownership. The numbers speak for themselves.
Click to expand...

Actually, the numbers don't speak for themselves. They're just a number. A number doesn't have a meaning outside of simply representing a mathematical value.

You're actually the one who was trying to use that number to "speak" to a point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top