Assault Weapons


Makaho 2.0 said:
Cee, you said the key word....logic! Liberal Logic does not work that way. He simply refuses to deal with the reality of the situation.....as most liberals do. He won't even address the California example I gave as to why banning something will not change things.

You can't reason with these people. You just have to beat them on election day.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the reverse logic that compares lunatics trying to obtain a truck load of fertilizer to lunatics trying to obtain guns. After the Oklahoma City bombing, several measures were put in place to keep unauthorized individuals from obtaining a truck of fertilizer, but after each mass shooting spree that approximately a dozen people were murdered, bat crap crazy conservatives, mostly members of the NRA show up in the defense of the 2nd Amendment by arguing for less restricted gun measures. Do you really want to see all restrictions on gun purchases removed so that anyone, including the mentally insane can legally obtain a gun? There's nothing crazier than intentionally allowing someone with a mental health problem to bear arms. What most bat crap crazy lunatics don't understand, the restrictions for fertilizer is the same nationwide and consistent, but restrictions for guns are sporadically different from city to city and state to state, basically the restrictions for fertilizer and the restrictions for guns do not come close in comparison. Also, due to more nationwide restrictions on purchasing fertilizer, there have never been another Oklahoma City type bombing, which has been approximately 18 years.
 
Last edited:
southsuburbs said:
The killer's mom thought she was protecting her family too. :smh:

You can protect your family...nobody (even the article) is stating that you shouldn't be able to but the 2nd Amendment should not be a pass for anyone to just go out and buy an excessive number guns/assault rifles/etc. :tdown:
Click to expand...

:tup: :tup: :tup:

Most chicken shyt lunatics are cowards that like to hide their cowardly behavior behind the 2nd Amendment. Without the 2nd Amendment, they would be just plain ole chicken shyt cowards.
 



unknown1 said:
I have 10 guns and **** Obama and anyone else that thinks ill be giving up any of mine.
Click to expand...

Do you think the government would consider you a lunatic/mentally insane person? If not, you should not have a problem owning your guns.
 
What most lunatics refuse to see, the shooter's mother taught him how to use those guns. No one picks up an AR-15 and immediately start firing it without anyone knowing how to load it and release the bolt. The mother was just as responsible since she taught her mentally insane son how to use those guns. There definitely should be a restriction that prohibits gun owners to show any mentally insane individual in their care how to use a gun. I guess the chickens definitely have come home to roost in her case, since he turned one of those guns on her.
 
All, we will just have to agree to disagree. Nothing personal and no need to call each other names. BTW, what does AR stands for?
 
JAG89 said:
I don't understand the reverse logic that compares lunatics trying to obtain a truck load of fertilizer to lunatics trying to obtain guns. After the Oklahoma City bombing, several measures were put in place to keep unauthorized individuals from obtaining a truck of fertilizer, but after each mass shooting spree that approximately a dozen people were murdered, bat crap crazy conservatives, mostly members of the NRA show up in the defense of the 2nd Amendment by arguing for less restricted gun measures. Do you really want to see all restrictions on gun purchases removed so that anyone, including the mentally insane can legally obtain a gun? There's nothing crazier than intentionally allowing someone with a mental health problem to bear arms. What most bat crap crazy lunatics don't understand, the restrictions for fertilizer is the same nationwide and consistent, but restrictions for guns are sporadically different from city to city and state to state, basically the restrictions for fertilizer and the restrictions for guns do not come close in comparison. Also, due to more nationwide restrictions on purchasing fertilizer, there have never been another Oklahoma City type bombing, which has been approximately 18 years.
Click to expand...

Bruh, have you read anything......anything I have posted regarding to gun crimes in this country?

Banning guns simply does not work. California and other states with extensive gun laws proves this. I don't know what else to say. BTW, there are a whoooole lot of other things than fertalizer a nut can use to blow stuff up. You can't apply logic to lunatics. You will go crazy trying to rationalize irrational behavior.

And nobody said anything about relaxing gun control laws...as I have stated too many times to count, CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW!
 
unknown1 said:
I have 10 guns and **** Obama and anyone else that thinks ill be giving up any of mine.
Click to expand...

Man, I really don't know why I didn't take this approach from jump. I feel the same way. And I wasted my time stating facts relating gun crimes here. They aint listening.

I'm with you bruh!

:tup:
 
For the Persons Who Want Gun Restrictions:

I hope you are all aware this goes beyond a simple law. There are licensed gun dealers who are willing to double the price of a gun and sell it. I purchased my first pistol from a gun dealer in Arkansas some years ago, and his brother was one caught by under cover ATF agents doing this. He was arrested after being in the illegal gun business for 20 years. He spent 10 years in the feds and got out and is still a millionaire.

These folks are close knit...
 
Makaho 2.0 said:
Man, I really don't know why I didn't take this approach from jump. I feel the same way. And I wasted my time stating facts relating gun crimes here. They aint listening.

I'm with you bruh!

:tup:
Click to expand...

Makaho the issue is some people want the government to take on the burden instead of creating deterrents.
 
The Founder said:
Makaho the issue is some people want the government to take on the burden instead of creating deterrents.
Click to expand...

Pretty much...

Another thing Nupe, why is nobody discussing the fact that these last two school shooters and the Colorado shooters were ALL on meds?

As a matter of fact some 90 percent of school shootings over more than a decade have been linked to a widely prescribed type of antidepressant called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or SSRIs.

It's easier to go after gun owners than pharmaceutical companies I guess.
 
I personally believe that every school system should have on way in and one way out unless there is an emergency. Then have security at the entrance. Yet, people would disagree with that based on the fact that the kids would feel imprisoned per se..... After all these school shootings that is the deal.

Take Louisiana for instance. They could do a mil tax to hire one Sheriff's Officer at every school. He is there from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. He/She works at the school when school is in session and when school is out they revert back to their sheriff's duties. Arm these sheriff's with automatic rifles etc.... Have every child go through security. All children must have see through back packs. The assistant principal and coaches will go through every bag. Girls, no purses.

But this is too much for "baby Timmy and Laura" to see.....deterrent.
 
Makaho 2.0 said:
Bruh, have you read anything......anything I have posted regarding to gun crimes in this country?

Banning guns simply does not work. California and other states with extensive gun laws proves this. I don't know what else to say. BTW, there are a whoooole lot of other things than fertalizer a nut can use to blow stuff up. You can't apply logic to lunatics. You will go crazy trying to rationalize irrational behavior.

And nobody said anything about relaxing gun control laws...as I have stated too many times to count, CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW!
Click to expand...

Have you read anything I posted? Gun laws are way too sporadic from state to state. And I'm not trying to get people without the mental capability to understand logic, but there SHALL BE a nationwide law that says MENTALLY INCAPABLE INDIVIDUALS/LUNATICS SHALL BE PROHIBITED TO HAVE ACCESS TO GUNS!!!!!!!!!!! But maybe you are right. Explaining what I typed to certain individuals on this Board could be just as crazy as the individuals that I'm trying to explain it to, which explains a lot. Crazy folks really believe the government will come take their guns away from them.
 
Last edited:
The Founder said:
I personally believe that every school system should have on way in and one way out unless there is an emergency. Then have security at the entrance. Yet, people would disagree with that based on the fact that the kids would feel imprisoned per se..... After all these school shootings that is the deal.

Take Louisiana for instance. They could do a mil tax to hire one Sheriff's Officer at every school. He is there from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. He/She works at the school when school is in session and when school is out they revert back to their sheriff's duties. Arm these sheriff's with automatic rifles etc.... Have every child go through security. All children must have see through back packs. The assistant principal and coaches will go through every bag. Girls, no purses.
But this is too much for "baby Timmy and Laura" to see.....deterrent.
Click to expand...

You know you just stated a gun preventive measure that should be in-place at ALL SCHOOLS nationwide, which is the same thing as not allowing crazy people access to guns, but I'm sure some bat crap crazy conservative is going to say that what Louisiana is doing is a violation of the Constitution. And I have yet to see anyone on this board going after sane gun owners.
 
Last edited:



Yes, I have read what you posted. Which is why I ask why you are still so clueless. Have you filled out a federal firearms form (Brady Bill) lately? Not only do they run your information to the feds almost instantly; the feds also know you just purchased a gun and know based on your info whether or not you have been in a mental facility. Oh yeah, if you lie on a form, you get red flagged by the feds as well.

http://www.ocshooters.com/Gen/Form-4473/ATF-FORM-4473-pg1.gif

The form is the same from state to state, you have to pass a federal background check from state to state, and YES, it asks if you are mentally unstable on those forms. I guess you want to have people pee in a cup and do a drug test to see if they are on zoloft or something. But the feds know in "real time" if the person is a loon. The only "sporadic" gun laws are those that go a step above what the ATF requires. For example, California....you can't even own an assault rifle there, and if you buy a handgun, not only do you you have to pass a background check but you have to take a written test....yet look at their gun crimes.

Gun laws vary from state to state as well as municipalities (cities). But at the bare minimum they have to adhere to federal standards......what states do is ADD restrictions to what the feds have. Ex. you can't even own a gun in D.C. (look at their gun crimes too) Chicago also is an example....

In my home state of MS., you can't buy a gun if you are behind in your child support payments. I know a dude that pawned his gun and went about a month later and couldn't get his own gun back because ole girl dropped papers on him for missing child support payments. BTW, even if you pawn a gun and go back the same day and try to get it back, they make you fill out federal paperwork to get your own gun.

States have the right to ADD whatever additional laws they see fit...they can't take away from what the federal govt. has put out as the standard.....I don't know where you get that whole "prohibition from the mentally ill" not being on a gun form. It's there in black and white bruh, look at the form.

But the problem is you simply cannot stop the mentally ill or criminals from getting guns from "illegal" sources. Much in the same manner you can't stop them from getting damn drugs either.

Again, EVERY state follows what the ATF/FBI has put out there in regards to gun purchases. States however, have the discretion to ADD additional laws to what the feds have.

I don't know how else to break it down to you.

I'm done trying....

JAG89 said:
Have you read anything I posted? Gun laws are way too sporadic from state to state. And I'm not trying to get people without the mental capability to understand logic, but there SHALL BE a nationwide law that says MENTALLY INCAPABLE INDIVIDUALS/LUNATICS SHALL BE PROHIBITED TO HAVE ACCESS TO GUNS!!!!!!!!!!! But maybe you are right. Explaining what I typed to certain individuals on this Board could be just as crazy as the individuals that I'm trying to explain it to, which explains a lot. Crazy folks really believe the government will come take their guns away from them.
Click to expand...
 
The Founder said:
Take Louisiana for instance. They could do a mil tax to hire one Sheriff's Officer at every school. He is there from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. He/She works at the school when school is in session and when school is out they revert back to their sheriff's duties. Arm these sheriff's with automatic rifles etc.... Have every child go through security. All children must have see through back packs. The assistant principal and coaches will go through every bag. Girls, no purses.

But this is too much for "baby Timmy and Laura" to see.....deterrent.
Click to expand...

Having a sheriff’s deputy at every school isn’t realistic just due to the lack of man power.

A former FBI official was asked about that on CNN today. He said it would be impossible because there just wouldn’t be enough law enforcement officials to go around and work at schools from early in the morning to late at night.

Police forces in many cities and towns are significantly under staffed as it is to deal with every day crime.

Then the guy asked the female anchor, “What about high schools and colleges that have multiple buildings?” How do you staff them?

He said, "You can't."
 
With all that you typed below, is there anywhere on those forms that states that a responsible gun owner could lose their gun ownership privileges if they allow a MENTALLY ILL individual(s) to gain access to any gun they own?

I'm sure you want people to believe the same Brady Bill applies to all gun purchases at gun shows.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/gunshowloophole

Also, nothing I previously typed implies that I'm advocating that the government should take guns away from RESPONSIBLE gun owners, therefore it is hard for me to understand why someone does not want more PREVENTIVE MEASURES that would require gun owners to be MORE RESPONIBLE by stating that GUN OWNERS SHALL NOT ALLOW ANYONE WITH A MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEM ACCESS TO ANY FIREARMS, unless like you stated before, it's crazy to explain any type of logic to someone who is already crazy.

Makaho 2.0 said:
Yes, I have read what you posted. Which is why I ask why you are still so clueless. Have you filled out a federal firearms form (Brady Bill) lately? Not only do they run your information to the feds almost instantly; the feds also know you just purchased a gun and know based on your info whether or not you have been in a mental facility. Oh yeah, if you lie on a form, you get red flagged by the feds as well.

http://www.ocshooters.com/Gen/Form-4473/ATF-FORM-4473-pg1.gif

The form is the same from state to state, you have to pass a federal background check from state to state, and YES, it asks if you are mentally unstable on those forms. I guess you want to have people pee in a cup and do a drug test to see if they are on zoloft or something. But the feds know in "real time" if the person is a loon. The only "sporadic" gun laws are those that go a step above what the ATF requires. For example, California....you can't even own an assault rifle there, and if you buy a handgun, not only do you you have to pass a background check but you have to take a written test....yet look at their gun crimes.

Gun laws vary from state to state as well as municipalities (cities). But at the bare minimum they have to adhere to federal standards......what states do is ADD restrictions to what the feds have. Ex. you can't even own a gun in D.C. (look at their gun crimes too) Chicago also is an example....

In my home state of MS., you can't buy a gun if you are behind in your child support payments. I know a dude that pawned his gun and went about a month later and couldn't get his own gun back because ole girl dropped papers on him for missing child support payments. BTW, even if you pawn a gun and go back the same day and try to get it back, they make you fill out federal paperwork to get your own gun.

States have the right to ADD whatever additional laws they see fit...they can't take away from what the federal govt. has put out as the standard.....I don't know where you get that whole "prohibition from the mentally ill" not being on a gun form. It's there in black and white bruh, look at the form.

But the problem is you simply cannot stop the mentally ill or criminals from getting guns from "illegal" sources. Much in the same manner you can't stop them from getting damn drugs either.

Again, EVERY state follows what the ATF/FBI has put out there in regards to gun purchases. States however, have the discretion to ADD additional laws to what the feds have.

I don't know how else to break it down to you.

I'm done trying....
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
kendrick said:
Having a sheriff’s deputy at every school isn’t realistic just due to the lack of man power.

A former FBI official was asked about that on CNN today. He said it would be impossible because there just wouldn’t be enough law enforcement officials to go around and work at schools from early in the morning to late at night.

Police forces in many cities and towns are significantly under staffed as it is to deal with every day crime.

Then the guy asked the female anchor, “What about high schools and colleges that have multiple buildings?” How do you staff them?

He said, "You can't."
Click to expand...

Rapides Parish, LA assigns a School Resource Office (SRO/deputy sheriff) at most of its public schools within the parish. When I attended Peabody Magnet High School in Rapides Parish from 1979-83, we had a Parish SRO we called Percy that shot a parent for picking up his kid in the school bus zone. The SRO officer/Percy shot this man because he refused to move his car out of the bus zone. IMO and most of my family members opinions who are/were police officers believed that Percy didn't have the qualifications to carry a firearm. But Louisiana's Republican Governor Piyush "Bobby" Jindal is trying his best to change this by privatizing schools through his school voucher program, which was recently ruled unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
I dont agree with banning guns. Getting caught with a gun is a charge and people still have them, so it wont change a thing. People still gonna have them and I need to be ready to defend myself. America messed up when they allowed people to make guns here.
 
GoodFella said:
I dont agree with banning guns. Getting caught with a gun is a charge and people still have them, so it wont change a thing. People still gonna have them and I need to be ready to defend myself. America messed up when they allowed people to make guns here.
Click to expand...

The biggest fear anyone should have is would there be enough gun manufactures that can stay in business in case there is a need for them during war, which is why our government subsidize companies to remain in business, such as the car industry. All though Ford did not receive any federal subsidy, they were one of the main reasons why the United States won WWII.
 
JAG89 said:
Rapides Parish, LA assigns a School Resource Office (SRO/deputy sheriff) at most of its public schools within the parish. When I attended Peabody Magnet High School in Rapides Parish from 1979-83, we had a Parish SRO we called Percy that shot a parent for picking up his kid in the school bus zone. The SRO officer/Percy shot this man because he refused to move his car out of the bus zone. IMO and most of my family members opinions who are/were police officers believed that Percy didn't have the qualifications to carry a firearm. But Louisiana's Republican Governor Piyush "Bobby" Jindal is trying his best to change this by privatizing schools through his school voucher program, which was recently ruled unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


In Pulaski County (Little Rock/North Little Rock), there are LRPD officers stationed at the high schools in the LRSD. There are 2 at Hall High where my youngest goes; since both my daughters went there, it's always been 2 police officers there (one male, one female). I believe there is an officer from the LRPD stationed at all the schools in the LRSD.
 
This is why you train resource security officers. America has no problem training them for weapons to protect banks and other State buildings. Why not schools? I went to the social security office today. They had private security guards with guns. The schools have security guards in them anyway. They just are not armed. Arm them and you have a line of defense.
kendrick said:
But can that be done for every school in every county and every state, though?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top