Nomadsfest Sox Fans

A forum for the old AOL board Sox fans and others.


    Mass shooting

    Share
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7497
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 51
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Mass shooting

    Post by Soxillinirob on Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:16 pm

    rmapasad wrote:
    Soxillinirob wrote:
    All guns used in crimes and recovered could be tracked back to titled owner, just like cars.  National gun registry.  Guns tracking back to owners that were not reported lost or stolen would result in fines or loss of ownership privileges is used in commission of a crime.
    Before you start telling me this could never work, I call bullshit and just note that some version of this could very much work, and be de-bugged, and at the very least be made to reduce the access of guns in such simple fashion to anyone wanting them.  Criminals could still get them, but it would become harder.  There'd be more hurdles.  More expense.  More accountability.  Maybe it saves one life in year one, and by year 10 is saving 10 or 20 lives, but we've gotta start somewhere.

    Agree we should seriously consider anything that makes it more difficult for a would-be mass murderer to obtain guns/ammo or increases the chances of intercepting him before he can do it. Making guns or ammo more expensive may put them beyond the financial reach of some % of bad people, but it would also put them beyond reach of some people who want them for self-defense.

    It needs to cost what it needs to cost.  Guns are taking a horrific toll and exacting a monstrous cost on the American people.  Fine with me if they are legal, but gun owners should pay for the cost of that hobby, just like I pay a toll to drive on I-294, and I pay a tax for the snow removal for living on an area that needs it.  Actuarial science spells out in clear numbers that a gun owner is far more likely to suffer a gun death in his home, of his family members, than a non-gun owner.  If I have an assault weapon in my home, my kid is surely more likely to go on a killing spree than if I don't.  These killings and sprees cost our government money in manpower.  What is the FBI and overtime manpower cost in Vegas?  Do I pay that?  Do Nevada citizens pay that?  Or should gun owners pay that?

    in creating an indemnity fund, you put the cost of gun damages on the people who partake in that culture or hobby.  I don't mean it as a penalty, i.e. fuck you Mr. Gun Nut, you shall pay a terrible cost.  I mean it along the lines of guns are costing our culture dearly and our society in actual $$.  Perhaps if we put an actual pricetag on human lives and begin indemnifying those families and local govts for their costs, we begin to regulate the movement of guns and mass quantity ownership.  If I can't afford a gun then so be it.  It's not a staple.  We can carry on without one.  If I can't afford a boat, I don't get one either.  They should cost what they cost in terms of the cost to society. 

      OF course, politically the gun lobby would never allow this to happen.

    Meh, whatever.  Where there's a will, there's a way.  I was told here many years ago by either Todd, or maybe you, that Congress would NEVER lift D.A.D.T.  I was also told by, I think, Todd on this board that marriage equality was never going to happen.  Once there is enough public pressure, things happen.  If some dumb fuck senator thinks that voting against gun measures will get him ousted, then he'll vote FOR the measure no matter what the NRA says.  Ultimately, they vote with the NRA because the NRA will pay to have them beaten out of their position in the Senate.  If the public wants something more than the NRA wants something, they'll have no choice.  The NRA has money, but the ultimate power is with the voters.  I refuse to believe otherwise.


    National registration of gun purchases would be an aid to law enforcement provided they can legally and practically act on those records in concert with other information.  The case of the disturbed 23 year old who killed 7 people in Santa Barbara several years ago shows why.  California requires every gun's purchaser and weapon be logged into the State's database. He had bought handguns from several dealers a couple years earlier and there was no negative acts on his record.  Afterwards, he had a pattern of bizarre behavior and anti-Asian, anti-women posts on You Tube plus skirmishes with individuals in his apartment building.  He posted a manifesto on You Tube saying he'd had guns and might exact revenge on people who had offended him.  A mental health worker saw that and contacted SB police who went to his apartment and questioned him but didn't cross-reference the state gun ownership database and didn't search his apartment.   His parents got another warning from their son's therapist who saw his final manifesto stating "tomorrow is the day" which detailed what he'd do. They called the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Dept but it was too late. Families of the victims filed lawsuits against the county, Sheriff's Dept. and even the property management co. of the apartment complex alleging they failed to take appropriate action on clear warning signs while there was still time.

    For the life of me I cannot fathom how there's not a national registry.  It won't stop crazies.  It won't stop wanna be terrorists, but a national registry with titled ownership and deeded transfer of title would put a considerably greater amount of accountability on gun owners.  There's no reason we can't do this with guns if we do it with cars and homes.  Every gun ought to have mandated liability insurance that attaches to the gun either for a year or the life of the gun.  



    But exactly what preventative steps can practically and legally be taken by authorities ?  SB County deputies had interviewed the shooter three weeks prior but concluded that based on his answers he wasn't a threat. The suit alleges the Dept failed to read his online Manifestos and check the state gun purchase database, the combination of which might have triggered a search of his apartment.  But legally could they have confiscated weapons at that point when there was only the possibility of a crime ?  This could get very sticky if guns could be confiscated based just on online videos.   That to me is the crux of the matter. Once you have the information at hand, what can and should be done about it ?

    In a free society with 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendment (search/seizure) rights the ability of law enforcement to detain, search, confiscate weapons, and/or arrest based on speech and expression of ideas (even hateful ones) is limited.   Whatever laws we enact have to be surgically aimed at the exact evils... Law enforcement needs to be able to legally do more when they discover people who own guns ( particularly assault rifles) and/or other devices like those turning semi-automatic rifles into automatic ones  and then discover other information that suggesting they may be used to assault other people.  I believe some would-be bombers have been intercepted due to aggressive law enforcement interdiction on that basis.   Maybe because there is no lobbyist group working to protect Bombers. 


    One thing is for certain...now that the record biggest killing is 58 deaths in a single incident, I can assure you that there's some dick out there figuring out how he can kill more than that.   It's being planned and thought through right now.  We can either throw up our hands and say "hey, it's our right...nothing we can do" or we can say "it's time to figure this shit out."  
    I just saw a breaking news thingy on the news that said McConnell says they are going to begin looking into and considering some new gun legislation.  I'll believe it when I see it, but I can't believe McConnell would ever even say that in a public forum.  I'd have thought that soulless bastard would just hide out for a week or two until this blows over.
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 2578
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Mass shooting

    Post by rmapasad on Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:43 am

    One thing is for certain...now that the record biggest killing is 58 deaths in a single incident, I can assure you that there's some dick out there figuring out how he can kill more than that.   It's being planned and thought through right now.  We can either throw up our hands and say \"hey, it's our right...nothing we can do" or we can say "it's time to figure this shit out." wrote:
    I just saw a breaking news thingy on the news that said McConnell says they are going to begin looking into and considering some new gun legislation.  I'll believe it when I see it, but I can't believe McConnell would ever even say that in a public forum.  I'd have thought that soulless bastard would just hide out for a week or two until this blows over.

    IMO, the only legislation that might have any chance at this point would be narrowly aimed at equipment whose main purpose is offense-oriented such as assault rifles, automatic weapons, silencers, devices to convert semi-automatic rifles to automatic, etc.  The argument being that this equipment aids the work of mass murderers and criminals and society has an interest in stopping the flow of it to the wrong people.

    Having a national gun purchase registry which requires gun shop sellers to report their sales and purchasers into a national database would probably get huge pushback from the NRA.  But even if it were to pass, that's not enough. California has such a law and there have still been 2 mass shootings here in the last couple years (San Bernardino ISIS guy and the Santa Barbara kid). In both cases, the guns used were in the State database.  Police must also be permitted to do searches and seizures where an identified owner of guns has given "probable cause" (i.e,, online rants or overt threats reported by others). But the degree of probable cause would have to meet a  high bar to survive the constitutional challenges from both the NRA and ACLU.  People utter threats all the time so it would have to meet the same sort of bar that has allowed police to arrest extremists who've accumulated explosives. Which brings me back to the assault weapons, silencers, devices, etc.  Making the accumulation of those illegal and subject to seizure, plus arresting the owner could have an effect.

    Nothing will deter a would-be shooter except detection or the threat of.  He is so crazed and so believing in the rightness of his twisted cause that he is ready to die in the process.  The only way to stop him is to pick up on his trail before it's too late.  The Vegas guy didn't leave a big one except for the sheer # of guns and equipment he had.  Others have been sloppier in letting their emotions and intentions spill out before the act itself.   Police have to be attuned to connecting the dots between gun ownership and probable cause about how those guns will be used. Plus they need to be given the latitude to act when that probable cause rises to the level of a clear and present danger.
    Which will require the right to tell the NRA and the left to tell the ACLU to shut the fuck up in their "principled" objections to some common-sense protections which will help our citizens be in public places without the fear of being shot to death by some crazy asshole. 
    avatar
    alohafri
    Pope Malort I

    Posts : 7238
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 50
    Location : Southwest Suburbs

    Re: Mass shooting

    Post by alohafri on Wed Oct 04, 2017 11:07 am

    rmapasad wrote:

    IMO, the only legislation that might have any chance at this point would be narrowly aimed at equipment whose main purpose is offense-oriented such as assault rifles, automatic weapons, silencers, devices to convert semi-automatic rifles to automatic, etc.  The argument being that this equipment aids the work of mass murderers and criminals and society has an interest in stopping the flow of it to the wrong people.

    Speaking of which, why in the Hell is there a law allowing those "bump stocks" yet another law saying you can't use them? Why even allow them then?
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7497
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 51
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Mass shooting

    Post by Soxillinirob on Wed Oct 04, 2017 11:13 am

    alohafri wrote:
    rmapasad wrote:

    IMO, the only legislation that might have any chance at this point would be narrowly aimed at equipment whose main purpose is offense-oriented such as assault rifles, automatic weapons, silencers, devices to convert semi-automatic rifles to automatic, etc.  The argument being that this equipment aids the work of mass murderers and criminals and society has an interest in stopping the flow of it to the wrong people.

    Speaking of which, why in the Hell is there a law allowing those "bump stocks" yet another law saying you can't use them? Why even allow them then?
     
    Because outlawing their sale would be stopped by the NRA's dollars.  You don't think the manufacturers of these products aren't hunkered down right now with the NRA figuring out how to make sure that their product won't stop being able to be sold?
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2096
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Mass shooting

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:14 pm

    Hawk Harrelson wrote:Politically active?  Does that mean sitting in front of a TV watching cable shows?  Does it mean posting on the Internet?


    Let's see....Is nutso Mart still in ISIS captivity?
    Where were all the street riots promised by Cream?
    Where is the Trump Dictatorship promised by Sharpy?  After all, all GOP Congressmen and Senators vote as a united bloc, right?
    ROTFLMFAO!!



    I JUST HOPE SHARPY GOT TO ENJOY THIS STOCK MARKET RUN UP


    THE LOVELY DOCTOR HAD SUCH A HISSY FIT WHEN THE DOW FUTURES DROPPED 700 AT 2AM ELECTION NIGHT


    PS, THERE WERE SOME RIOTS, SO GIVE CREAM SOME CREDIT.


    BTW, BEING POLITICALLY ACTIVE MEANS CALLING DAN AND AMY ON AM 560 AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2096
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Mass shooting

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:23 pm

    Which will require the right to tell the NRA and the left to tell the ACLU to shut the fuck up in their "principled" objections to some common-sense protections which will help our citizens be in public places without the fear of being shot to death by some crazy asshole. 


    **********************************************************


    TROUBLE IS, WHAT YOU CONSIDER COMMON SENSE MAY NOT BE COMMON OR SENSICAL.


    I'M SURE THE NRA THINKS THEY HAVE COMMON SENSE ON THEIR SIDE AND WHY CAN'T PEOPLE LIKE YOU GET IT.  DITTO THE ACLU.


    YOU HAD IT CORRECT B4.  IF SOME LONE WHACKO DECIDES HE WANTS TO GO TO HELL AND TAKE AS MANY PEOPLE WITH HIM AS POSSIBLE, NOT MUCH CAN BE DONE TO STOP HIM.  AND EVEN IF YOU DO TAKE ALL THE GUNS AWAY, AS LONG AS THERE ARE CROWDS OF PEOPLE, SOMEBODY WILL FIND A WAY TO HARM THEM
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2096
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Mass shooting

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:27 pm

    Soxillinirob wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:

    This clown, besides having a gun license, also had a pilots license.  Had he crashed a small plane in order to kill as many as possible, would the RobZ's of the world be crying about how people could use planes as weapons.  Or was 9/11 not enough to make him numb to such attacks


    PS, just heard this whack job was a retired accountant.  BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID.

    There's a notable difference between the use of guns in crimes and your weak and lazy use of planes to kill people (or others who use knives or cars...).  Planes are created for flying people around.  Using one to kill people is a rare misuse of an airplane, and 99.99% of the time, an airplane is used for a more efficient and useful purpose.  Guns are made for shooting people or to be used to coerce people (for hopefully positive reasons such as preventing crime).  I'm not hearing much about any positive public uses of guns for the sake of maintaining order or safety.  I realize cops carry them and maintain order...usually.  The military carries them and maintains order.  But I don't know if the public is maintaining order.  Most of the time I hear about the use of a gun, it's to kill or harm folks.  Haven't seen a lotta stories about some sap successfully defending his family or property with a gun.  Every now and then, but not often.  So it appears to me that guns exist for two reasons.  1. To kill innocent people and 2. To defend oneself against killers and thieves.  Seems we're having quite a few of #1.  Not sure we're getting much #2.  If cars and airplanes were careening out of control and killing people seemingly as often as they were getting people safely to work, they'd be talking about getting rid of cars and planes.




    CONCEAL CARRY WORKS!!!!!!!!


    CHANGE THE CHANNEL FROM RACHEL MADCOW AND JIMMY KIMMEL THEN MAYBE YOU'LL HEAR ABOUT IT


    YOU DIDN'T HEAR IT, THE LAZIEST AND DUMBEST ARGUMENT OUT THERE
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2096
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Mass shooting

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:45 pm

    Soxillinirob wrote:It would be nice to see some kind of thoughtful and empathetic approach to regulating gun use and ownership in a way that might begin to reduce the senseless uses of them.  Not sure how we do it, but it would be nice to see both parties working on it and telling the NRA to go fuck itself (since the NRA will be against anything that means less gun sales) as it seeks out a common ground that might reduce the carnage.


    MAYBE YOU SHOULD FUCK YOURSELF


    MAYBE IF THE DAMN LEFT HADN'T DOWN EVERYTHING IT COULD TO PISS ON GOD, FAMILY, AND COUNTRY,THEN MAYBE YOU'D HAVE LESS WHACK JOBS!!!!!

    MAYBE IF WE HAD THE 10 COMMANDMENTS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, MAYBE THOU SHALT NOT KILL WILL SINK INTO MORE PEOPLE.  BUT WHACKOS LIKE ROBZ ARE AFRAID OF OFFENDING PEOPLE WITH THE WORD SABBATH

    MAYBE IF ABSTINENCE WAS TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS, THEN MAYBE HALF THE KIDS TODAY WOULDN'T BE BORN BASTARDS AND RUNNING AROUND IN GANGS KILLING EACH OTHER OVER DRUG TURF.  BUT WHACKOS LIKE ROBZ THINK ABSTINENCE IS BACKDOOR RELIGION.

    MAYBE IF THE LEFT DIDN'T DESTROY THE BLACK FAMILY WITH WELFARE, THEN MAYBE THERE WOULD BE MORE DADS TO RAISE THE KIDS RIGHT.

    JUST LOOK AT THE KILLER.  NO WIFE, NO KIDS, ASSHOLE FOR A FATHER.  BIG TIME GAMBLER.  MAY HAVE BEEN RADICALIZED.  THANK YOU LIBERALISM!!!!!!

    MAYBE STUFF LIKE THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN IF SOCIETY WENT BACK TO FOCUSING ON GOD, FAMILY COUNTRY INSTEAD OF TREATING THIS PATRIOTIC TRINITY AS SOME FLAG WAVING JOKE.

    BUT NOOOOOOOOOOO

    LETS PRETEND THE PROBLEM IS GUNS AND ALLOW THE HOLIER THAN THOU ELITISTS TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHT TO DEFEND OURSELVES.

    THE REASON THE NRA EXISTS IS TO PROTECT AMERICANS FROM IDIOT ASS CLOWNS THAT DON'T UNDERSTAND THE GUN ISSUE BUT GET ALL SELF RIGHTEOUS AND START VIRTUE SIGNALLING AND POLITICIZING THEIR FEEL GOOD PC BULLSHIT WHENEVER TRAGEDY STRIKES.  

    BUT WHEN AN ILLEGAL KILLS WHILE DRIVING DRUNK, WHICH HAPPENS EVERY WEEKEND, THE GOOD PROGRESSIVES TURN A BLIND EYE.  IN FACT THEY CALL FOR MORE ILLEGALS AND MORE REFUGEES.

    WHAT A BUNCH OF LYING HYPOCRITS

    PS, ROBZ WANT HEROIN LEGAL.  HOW FUCKED UP IS THAT.
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2096
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Mass shooting

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:48 pm

    FUCK JIMMY KIMMEL


    AN ASS CLOWN THAT WHO WAS LUCKY ENOUGH TO CASH IN ON GIRLS ON TRAMPOLINES AND NOW HE'S A FUCKING EXPERT JUST BECAUSE HE HAD A SICK CHILD AND CRIED ON TV AND EVERYBODY FELT SORRY FOR HIM


    FUCK THIS ASSHOLE
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 2578
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Mass shooting

    Post by rmapasad on Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:53 pm

    YOU HAD IT CORRECT B4.  IF SOME LONE WHACKO DECIDES HE WANTS TO GO TO HELL AND TAKE AS MANY PEOPLE WITH HIM AS POSSIBLE, NOT MUCH CAN BE DONE TO STOP HIM.  AND EVEN IF YOU DO TAKE ALL THE GUNS AWAY, AS LONG AS THERE ARE CROWDS OF PEOPLE, SOMEBODY WILL FIND A WAY TO HARM THEM 
    I don't think a broad sweep "tough gun measures" is the answer to stopping this stuff.  Here is what I think can be done:

    1- We won't be able to ban the sale of stuff that typically signals bad intentions like assault rifles, bump stocks, armor-piercing ammo, silencers, etc. but we can make buying it tougher and let the buyers know their names, addresses and stated purposes of purchases of those particular items must
     go immediately into the FBI databases.  Just those things not other guns though.
    2 - We should make it easier for law enforcement to find out when someone has been accumulating these kind of items along with large quantities of any kind of guns or ammo in a short period.
    3 - We should allow officers who see online evidence or hear eyewitness testimony of a potential shooter making threats to use weapons to search that home for weapons and even seize them if they have probable cause to believe they will be imminently used.
    4 - We should tell the public that "see something, hear something, say something".  In almost all these incidents some neighbor, friend or relative was clued into the intentions (like the Dylan Roof case) of the shooter plans to do something and even saw the weapons.  Give more encouragement to people to provide info to law enforcement 

    The FBI and local police are spending countless dollars and manhours investigating the whys and wherefores of this latest shooting spree.  What good are all those efforts if some lessons can't be used to keep similar things from happening again ?   
    While I still think some of these shootings will happen no matter, sometimes they can be detected in time to prevent.  Why should a possible shooter be able to buy large quantities of ammo and/or suspicious weaponry, then make online statements or bold proclamations to others about his intent to remedy his hatred, but we are relegated to being unable to stop him despite all these clues ?
    It shouldn't have to be that hopeless.
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7497
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 51
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Mass shooting

    Post by Soxillinirob on Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:32 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    TROUBLE IS, WHAT YOU CONSIDER COMMON SENSE MAY NOT BE COMMON OR SENSICAL.


    Common sense gun legislation is that which members of both party would support, but wouldn't vote for out of fear of the NRA.  Members of both parties support universal background checks, but they'd never be allowed to vote for it.  So they filibustered it.  It had 80%+ support from the public.  Congressmen want to vote for things that their constituents strongly support.  If they are voting against strong constituent support, then there's money at play.
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7497
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 51
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Mass shooting

    Post by Soxillinirob on Thu Oct 05, 2017 10:00 am

    rmapasad wrote:1- We won't be able to ban the sale of stuff that typically signals bad intentions like assault rifles, bump stocks, armor-piercing ammo, silencers, etc. but we can make buying it tougher and let the buyers know their names, addresses and stated purposes of purchases of those particular items must
     go immediately into the FBI databases.  Just those things not other guns though.


    I'm not sure why some of those things can't be banned.  It's hard to imagine that they'll be banned, so you're likely right, but machine guns are illegal.  Hand grenades and grenade launchers are illegal.  So clearly, there's a line of separation between what's legal and not legal.  Who says they can't move that line a tad?  If the voters start to care enough about this stuff, perhaps they'll force the hand of Congress to remove additional weapons with the potential for mass murder.  If machine guns are illegal, then it's hard to imagine the argument for keeping bump stocks legal.  A grenade launcher could take out 20-30 people at once.  A semi automatic gun with several high capacity ammo clips can do just about the same thing, so why are those legal?  


    If voters ever gain the will to fight the NRA on this and render the NRA's $$ worthless, then congress will begin voting with the people instead of the NRA.  Right now, the voters will stick to their D or their R when they vote, but that can always change.  I know many Repubs that are significantly in favor of stricter gun controls and regs and mass gun registration as you and I have mentioned, but they won't dare vote against the R's because of things like abortion, or Hillary's emails, or gay marriage, or Obama's a Muslim, or debt/deficits.  That can change.  Not sure it will, but it could. 
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2096
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Mass shooting

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:29 am

    WHY DOESN'T THE GOVERNMENT DO SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!


    SOME WHACKO MIS-USES A GUN AND NOW WE NEED TO BAN GUNS AND THROW THE NRA IN JAIL


    USING THIS LOGIC, WHEN THE GAYS WHERE SPREADING AIDS AROUND THE WORLD, WE SHOULD HAVE QUARANTINED SAN FRANCISCO AND MAKE TOUGHER SODOMY LAWS.


    I JUST LOVE THE HYPOCRICSY OF THE LEFT


    OPIOIDS ARE KILLING PEOPLE ALL OVER AMERICA AND ONE GUY HERE THINKS HEROIN SHOULD LEGAL.


    ILLEGALS KILL PEOPLE EVERYDAY AND THE LEFT WANTS AMNESTY


    ISLAMIC TERROR KILLS EVERYDAY AND THE LEFT WANTS MORE REFUGEES FROM THE MIDDLE EAST


    ABORTION KILLS EVERYDAY AND THE LEFT WANTS IT TO BE FEDERALLY FUNDED


    THE PROBLEM ISN'T GUNS.  THE PROBLEM IS THAT GUNS AREN'T A PET CAUSE OF THE LEFT.


    THE LEFT DOESN'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT PEOPLE.  THEY JUST WANT TO CONTROL US.  SINGLE PAYER, FREE COLLEGE, UNIVERSAL INCOME.  ALL TO CONTROL US.  CLAIMING ITS FOR OUR OWN GOOD.  THAT'S WHY THE PROGRESSIVE LEFT OUTLAWED ALCOHOL AND OUTLAWED MARIJUANNA AND TAXES US ON OUR INCOME AND LIES ABOUT THE CHANGING CLIMATE.


    BUT THEY WILL NEVER CONTROL US AS LONG AS SANE, FREEDOM LOVING GROUPS LIKE THE NRA PROTECT THE SECOND AMENDMENT WHICH PREVENT THIS GOVERNMENT FROM INFRINGING UPON OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO PROTECT OURSELVES.


    PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN GOD FAMILY AND COUNTRY WOULD NEVER DO WHAT THIS CLOWN DID.  THE PROBLEM ISN'T GUNS.  ITS THE SECULAR LEFT THAT THINK GOD IS A MYTH, THE FATHER IS NOTHING BUT A SPERM DONER, AND THE FLAG IS TOILET PAPER.


    PUT GOD BACK IN SCHOOLS AND YOU WON'T HAVE TO TAKE THE GUNS AWAY FROM THE PEOPLE
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2096
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Mass shooting

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:37 am

    Soxillinirob wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    TROUBLE IS, WHAT YOU CONSIDER COMMON SENSE MAY NOT BE COMMON OR SENSICAL.


    Common sense gun legislation is that which members of both party would support, but wouldn't vote for out of fear of the NRA.  Members of both parties support universal background checks, but they'd never be allowed to vote for it.  So they filibustered it.  It had 80%+ support from the public.  Congressmen want to vote for things that their constituents strongly support.  If they are voting against strong constituent support, then there's money at play.


    COMMON SENSE GUN LEGISLATION

    LMAO!!!!!!

    HOW ABOUT COMMON SENSE ABORTION RESTRRICTIONS

    HOW ABOUT COMMON SENSE PENSION REFORM

    HOW ABOUT COMMON SENSE TAX REFORM

    HOW ABOUT COMMON SENSE HEALTHCARE REFORM

    HOW ABOUT COMMON SENSE REGARDING THE NUMBER OF GENDERS

    HOW ABOUT COMMON SENSE ENVIROMENTALISM

    AMAZING HOW OFTEN COMMON SENSE GETS THROWN OUT THE WINDOW, BUT YOU ONLY NOTICE THE GUNS

    ***********

    THE PROBLEM ISN'T GUNS, THE PROBLEM IS PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO THINK THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO THE IMPOSSIBLE AND STOP EVERY TRAGEDY AND HARDSHIP.

    SHIT HAPPENS

    DEAL WITH IT.

    I REFUSE TO BE PUNISHED BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND JIMMY KIMMEL THINK YOU HAVE A MONPLOY ON COMMON SENSE

    YOU DON'T AND I HAVE A RIGHT TO DEFEND MYSELF.  A RIGHT ENDOWED TO ME BY MY CREATOR, NOT YOUR PRECIOUS GOVERNMENT
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 2578
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Mass shooting

    Post by rmapasad on Thu Oct 05, 2017 12:05 pm

    THE PROBLEM ISN'T GUNS, THE PROBLEM IS PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO THINK THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO THE IMPOSSIBLE AND STOP EVERY TRAGEDY AND HARDSHIP.
    SHIT HAPPENS
    DEAL WITH IT.
    I REFUSE TO BE PUNISHED BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND JIMMY KIMMEL THINK YOU HAVE A MONPLOY ON COMMON SENSE
    YOU DON'T AND I HAVE A RIGHT TO DEFEND MYSELF.  A RIGHT ENDOWED TO ME BY MY CREATOR, NOT YOUR PRECIOUS GOVERNMENT  >

    Why does the argument always have to be "you're going to take my handguns away" ?  When that's not the proposal or even close.  Only things being talked about are a) banning bump stocks
    and b) giving law enforcement greater access to information about people possibly planning to do something..
    This latest shooter bought 33 guns within the last year.   This should raise red flags. If law enforcement had access to sale records and had known of this quantity of purchases, they might have been able to pay this asshole a visit and/or done some surveillance on him.  
    Yes, this means that people who start stockpiling big arsenals may have their privacy invaded. So fucking what ?  Society as a whole has the same right of "self-defense" as the individual who carries a gun or stores them in his house does.   Part of society's "self-defense" is identifying these crazy assholes and trying to stop them before they have a chance to kill dozens of innocent people. One of the hottest trails to follow is when a nutjob has bought a bunch of guns and ammo over a short period of time. He may have the "right" to do that, but he doesn't have the right to be free from suspicion and surveillance if he does.   
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7497
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 51
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Mass shooting

    Post by Soxillinirob on Thu Oct 05, 2017 2:59 pm

    If I buy three packs of Sudafed in the same week, don't I get some kind of mandatory visit from the FBI to have a little talk? 
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7497
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 51
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Mass shooting

    Post by Soxillinirob on Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:36 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:

    HOW ABOUT COMMON SENSE ABORTION RESTRRICTIONS

    We have a lot of abortion rules, restrictions and guidelines already.  The conservative right won't be happy until they are completely illegal, so I'm not sure what kind of common sense restrictions you think needed to be added.  The far left probably won't be happy until we can abort right up to 1 minute prior to birth.  

    HOW ABOUT COMMON SENSE PENSION REFORM

    Ok.  Cool.


    HOW ABOUT COMMON SENSE TAX REFORM
    Great.  Do it.  Let's go.  This will be interesting, since the two parties have such contrasting positions on how to do this.

    HOW ABOUT COMMON SENSE HEALTHCARE REFORM
    This might actually happen in the near future, now that ACA appears here to stay but in need of a major adjustment or overhaul.  

    HOW ABOUT COMMON SENSE REGARDING THE NUMBER OF GENDERS
    Good luck with that.  

    HOW ABOUT COMMON SENSE ENVIROMENTALISM
    this is always in flux and there are constant changes and adjustments to how we're approaching the climate's changes.  Eventually, I think this will go the route of gun control.  the general public will become fed up at some point and begin voting out members of congress who dismiss environmental controls (or gun regs).  Not sure when guns and environment will become high priority for voters, but it's due to eventually happen.  



    AMAZING HOW OFTEN COMMON SENSE GETS THROWN OUT THE WINDOW, BUT YOU ONLY NOTICE THE GUNS
    No, I don't.  But you're welcome to that misinformed opinion.


    ***********

    THE PROBLEM ISN'T GUNS, THE PROBLEM IS PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO THINK THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO THE IMPOSSIBLE AND STOP EVERY TRAGEDY AND HARDSHIP.
    SHIT HAPPENS
    DEAL WITH IT.

    yeah, I know.  Gun massacres and killings are the price of freedom.  I've had this explained to me already.  Most of us accept this, but want to see some steps being taken to make gun owners work together with non-owners toward everyone taking greater accountability and responsibility in protecting one another against this bullshit.  No reason we can't have titled ownership and more careful rules regarding transfer of ownership and registration, along with an indemnity fund for victims.  Not sure how you turn that into my wanting to stop every tragedy and hardship, but that won't stop you from continuing your ridiculous and ignorant blather.  

    I REFUSE TO BE PUNISHED BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND JIMMY KIMMEL THINK YOU HAVE A MONPLOY ON COMMON SENSE

    I haven't a monopoly on anything except a bit of extra free time today.  If anything, you appear to be one of the few folks I know who go out of their way to demonstrate a lack of common sense, or at least a lack of common decency.  Kimmel is a reasonable guy, just like I am and most others on this board.  


    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7497
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 51
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Mass shooting

    Post by Soxillinirob on Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:04 am

    One failed shoe bombing attempt, and now we all take off our shoes to get onto a plane.

    Someone sneaks some kind of explosive fluid onto a plane and now we can't bring any shampoo or liquid products in our carry on luggage.

    People get unnecessarily killed in car accidents, and now we are required to wear seat belts.

    Someone figures out that having a few drinks before driving creates a menace on the road, so we have to accept having our alcohol consumption regulated before we drive.  

    Terrorists use box cutters to seize control of a plane and now we can't bring anything on the plane with a sharp edge.  

    A couple of kids take a lawn Jart in the head and now Jarts are illegal and out of production.

    Endless gun massacre upon gun massacre with dead kids, dead babies, shattered families, dead dads and moms, and there's simply nothing that can be done to stop it.  End of discussion.  We just sit back and be sad about it, I guess, and maybe tell people to follow Kark's advice and find God and marry their baby-mamas and then the shootings will maybe stop.  Kark, think about how fucking lazy that is.  

    It's time for gun owners and gun haters to work together and create a system of gun owner registration and accountability where owners of guns take pride in seeing that their fellow owners act responsibly and look out for everyone's best interest, including not being afraid to intervene when something seems off because some dude with 3 guns just bought 39 more, along with 5,000 rounds.  An indemnity fund, with gun owners paying premiums into the fund, which will reimburse the terrible financial tolls the gun culture is taking in this country, seems to me like the only way to attack this.  Guns should change ownership the same way as a car or a home.  Deeds.  Titles.  County recorders.  Insurance.  None of these things impede one's rights of ownership.  Notice that nowhere have I suggested the seizing or limiting of guns ownership.  Instead, we all need to get on board and work toward a common goal instead of seeing the worst in every attempt to bring some sanity to this issue.
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7497
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 51
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Mass shooting

    Post by Soxillinirob on Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:29 am

    Deplorable Mark wrote:OPIOIDS ARE KILLING PEOPLE ALL OVER AMERICA AND ONE GUY HERE THINKS HEROIN SHOULD LEGAL.


    Since you like to banter about this in some sort of dumb effort to sully me (as if I could be sullied any further), I'll clarify for the first time in a couple of years.


    I don't think of "decriminalization" of heroin as "legalizing" it, so much as wishing not to jail people for having or using the shit.  Personally, it seems a better way of dealing with a heroin user would be to mandate attendance in a program to clean it out of that person's system, rather than throwing them in a jail cell and further fucking up their lives.  You appear to think tossing a heroin user into jail is going to somehow make the US a better place.  Okay, then.  More power to ya.  


    Heroin and opioids are fucking up this country and killing people good and plenty.  So are guns.  One is legal and one is not.  One is regulated heavily and one is mostly not.    
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2096
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Mass shooting

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:40 pm

    Why does the argument always have to be "you're going to take my handguns away" ? 


    ************************************************************



    For the same reason every immigration discussion turns into YOU JUST WANT TO BREAK UP FAMILIES




    For the same reason every abortion discussion turns into YOU'RE SENDING WOMEN TO THE BACK ALLIES




    For the same reform every healthcare discussion turns into YOU WANT POOR PEOPLE TO GET SICK AND DIE




    For the same reason every envIromental discussion turns into YOU ARE FOR DIRTY AIR AND DIRTY WATER




    For the same reason every tax reform discussion turns into YOU ARE CUTTING TAXES FOR THE RICH




    For the same reason every welfare reform turns into YOU HATE BLACK PEOPLE




    For the same reason every religious freedom discussion tunrs into YOU HATE GAYS




    For the same reason every first amendment discussion turns into YOU ARE PROMOTING HATE


    GUN OWNERS DESERVE THE SAME SANCTUARY THE CITY OF CHICAGO GIVES TO ILLEGALS!!!!!!  AND IF YOU NEED MORE COPS TO WATCH US, DEFUND PLAN PARENTHOOD TO PAY FOR IT!!!!!
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2096
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Mass shooting

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Fri Oct 06, 2017 1:02 pm

    Soxillinirob wrote:One failed shoe bombing attempt, and now we all take off our shoes to get onto a plane.

    Someone sneaks some kind of explosive fluid onto a plane and now we can't bring any shampoo or liquid products in our carry on luggage.

    People get unnecessarily killed in car accidents, and now we are required to wear seat belts.

    Someone figures out that having a few drinks before driving creates a menace on the road, so we have to accept having our alcohol consumption regulated before we drive.  

    Terrorists use box cutters to seize control of a plane and now we can't bring anything on the plane with a sharp edge.  

    A couple of kids take a lawn Jart in the head and now Jarts are illegal and out of production.

    Endless gun massacre upon gun massacre with dead kids, dead babies, shattered families, dead dads and moms, and there's simply nothing that can be done to stop it.  End of discussion.  We just sit back and be sad about it, I guess, and maybe tell people to follow Kark's advice and find God and marry their baby-mamas and then the shootings will maybe stop.  Kark, think about how fucking lazy that is.  

    It's time for gun owners and gun haters to work together and create a system of gun owner registration and accountability where owners of guns take pride in seeing that their fellow owners act responsibly and look out for everyone's best interest, including not being afraid to intervene when something seems off because some dude with 3 guns just bought 39 more, along with 5,000 rounds.  An indemnity fund, with gun owners paying premiums into the fund, which will reimburse the terrible financial tolls the gun culture is taking in this country, seems to me like the only way to attack this.  Guns should change ownership the same way as a car or a home.  Deeds.  Titles.  County recorders.  Insurance.  None of these things impede one's rights of ownership.  Notice that nowhere have I suggested the seizing or limiting of guns ownership.  Instead, we all need to get on board and work toward a common goal instead of seeing the worst in every attempt to bring some sanity to this issue.


    TALK ABOUT A BACK DOOR REPEAL OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT!!!!!!!


    We won't seize your guns.  We'll just make them unaffordable


    A deeded title on a gun is the most fucked up thing I ever heard of.  Gun ownership is my private choice.  You have ZERO right to know what I do in private.  Last thing we need is a public registry of who owns a gun and how many.  I refuse to become a target because of your lazy thinking, as well as you casual dismissal of my fundamental rights.


    Guns are not the problem.


    More like the increasing secularism and feminism and socialism and communism of Western society.  Half of today's children are born bastards.  Sex is more important than God.  White guilt is running rampant.  And everybody expects the government to take care of them while completely ignoring how much that will cost the individual in not only wealth due to increased taxes, but in liberty in increased rules and regulation.


    1984 is a worse fate than last Sunday in Las Vegas.
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7497
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 51
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Mass shooting

    Post by Soxillinirob on Fri Oct 06, 2017 1:21 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:


    TALK ABOUT A BACK DOOR REPEAL OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT!!!!!!!

    I want for no such thing.  Wouldn't mind seeing it rewritten to make some fucking sense.  


    We won't seize your guns.  We'll just make them unaffordable

    Not sure my goal is to make them unaffordable, but if they are exacting a HUGE financial toll on us, someone needs to pay.  Either we all pay a gun tax to pull an indemnity fund together, or we tax the gun owners who actually are buying and/or using them.  


    A deeded title on a gun is the most fucked up thing I ever heard of.  Gun ownership is my private choice.

    Nobody is denying your right to buy guns.  The choice is most certainly yours and the choice to do so would still be a private choice.  I have a right to privately decide to own a car or a home, but when i do either, I do it through a system of deeding and titling, neither of which denies me of my right.  Not sure that the constitution guarantees us a right to keep our gun ownership private.  Perhaps it does.  I'll leave that up to a judge.  It sure as hell gives us the right to "well regulate" gun ownership.  

      You have ZERO right to know what I do in private.

    Oh really?  You mean like if someone wants to go and get an abortion in private, you don't have a right to involve yourself in that?  If someone wants to use some cocaine or smoke some weed, nobody has a right to involve themselves in that?  Make up your fucking mind.  You want privacy when you want privacy, and you want for me to not have privacy when you want to inject your morals or religion into my privacy. I don't give a shit if you use drugs, have abortions or own guns, but all of those things are able to be regulated if there's a legislative will for doing so, and if the SCOTUS won't overrule it.   




      Last thing we need is a public registry of who owns a gun and how many.  I refuse to become a target because of your lazy thinking, as well as you casual dismissal of my fundamental rights.

    I've seen or heard of no fundamental right to own guns without them being registered or titled.  We have a right to own them by way of the constitution, so the gov't knowing we have them shouldn't infringe in any way on our rights.  Just cuz they know we have them, doesn't mean they can come and take them.  We have a right to own them and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2096
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Mass shooting

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Fri Oct 06, 2017 3:34 pm

    Soxillinirob wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:


    TALK ABOUT A BACK DOOR REPEAL OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT!!!!!!!

    I want for no such thing.  Wouldn't mind seeing it rewritten to make some fucking sense.  

    LIKE I SAID, BACK DOOR REPEAL


    We won't seize your guns.  We'll just make them unaffordable

    Not sure my goal is to make them unaffordable, but if they are exacting a HUGE financial toll on us, someone needs to pay.  Either we all pay a gun tax to pull an indemnity fund together, or we tax the gun owners who actually are buying and/or using them.  


    THE SAME CAN BE SAID BUT ALL THE LEFTWING PC NONSENSE YOU SUPPORT.  SO ONCE THEY START PAYING, THEN US GUN OWNERS WILL CONSIDER IT

    A deeded title on a gun is the most fucked up thing I ever heard of.  Gun ownership is my private choice.

    Nobody is denying your right to buy guns.  The choice is most certainly yours and the choice to do so would still be a private choice.  I have a right to privately decide to own a car or a home, but when i do either, I do it through a system of deeding and titling, neither of which denies me of my right.

    GEE, I WOULD THINK A BANKER WOULD UNDERSTAND REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY LAW.  GUESS THAT GOES OUT THE WINDOW ONCE YOU CLIMB UP LEFTY THE HIGH HORSE

      Not sure that the constitution guarantees us a right to keep our gun ownership private.  Perhaps it does.  I'll leave that up to a judge.  It sure as hell gives us the right to "well regulate" gun ownership.  


      You have ZERO right to know what I do in private.

    Oh really?  You mean like if someone wants to go and get an abortion in private, you don't have a right to involve yourself in that?  If someone wants to use some cocaine or smoke some weed, nobody has a right to involve themselves in that?  Make up your fucking mind.

    MORE LIKE USING YOUR OWN ARGUMENT AGAINST.  YOU NEVER COULD STAND THE TASTE OF YOUR OWN MEDICINE

      You want privacy when you want privacy, and you want for me to not have privacy when you want to inject your morals or religion into my privacy.

    SPARE ME THE FAG LOVING BULLSHIT.  A M
    ARRIAGE IS A SACRED UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF HAVING CHILDREN.  IF YOUR FAGGOT FRIEND TRULY NEED SOMETHING TO LEGALIZE THEIR PERVERTED RELATIONSHIP, THEN WE CAN CREATE THE QUEER LLC.  BUT TWO DUDES CAN NEVER EVER BE A MARRIAGE

    I don't give a shit if you use drugs, have abortions or own guns, but all of those things are able to be regulated if there's a legislative will for doing so, and if the SCOTUS won't overrule it.   



      Last thing we need is a public registry of who owns a gun and how many.  I refuse to become a target because of your lazy thinking, as well as you casual dismissal of my fundamental rights.

    I've seen or heard of no

    WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK WHAT YOU SEE OR HEAR.  THIS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT YOU ARROGANT FUCK.  ITS JUST PROOF OF HOW LIMITED YOUR KNOWDLEDGE ON A PARTICULAR SUBJECT IS

    fundamental right to own guns without them being registered or titled.  We have a right to own them by way of the constitution, so the gov't knowing we have them shouldn't infringe in any way on our rights.  Just cuz they know we have them, doesn't mean they can come and take them.  We have a right to own them and I don't see that changing anytime soon.



    PUTTING A TITLE ON A GUN IS NOT ONLY AN COMPLETE OVER REACTION, ITS DOWN RIGHT UNAMERICAN.

    CONCEAL CARRY REDUCES CRIME AND SAVES LIVES

    SO FUCK YOU AND YOUR LIES ABOUT THE HUGE SOCIAL COST OF GUNS IN THIS COUNTRY
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7497
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 51
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Mass shooting

    Post by Soxillinirob on Fri Oct 06, 2017 4:55 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    I've seen or heard of no

    WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK WHAT YOU SEE OR HEAR.  THIS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT YOU ARROGANT FUCK.  ITS JUST PROOF OF HOW LIMITED YOUR KNOWDLEDGE ON A PARTICULAR SUBJECT IS

    fundamental right to own guns without them being registered or titled.  We have a right to own them by way of the constitution, so the gov't knowing we have them shouldn't infringe in any way on our rights.  Just cuz they know we have them, doesn't mean they can come and take them.  We have a right to own them and I don't see that changing anytime soon.


    I'm not making an argument.  I'm pointing out that I do not believe we necessarily have a constitutional right to gun privacy.  A right to bear arms is not a right to gun privacy.  I have a right to an abortion, but there are medical records in a national database, and even though I have medical privacy, that stuff is all on record, and as far as i know, the gov't has not grabbed those records and used them against women.  Do you know otherwise?  This refusal to have a registry comes down to a fear of gun grabbers looking you up and taking your guns.  All that said, do you know otherwise regarding some kind of right to privately own a gun without registering?  Aren't there some states where all guns are on a registry?
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 2578
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Mass shooting

    Post by rmapasad on Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:53 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote: GUN OWNERS DESERVE THE SAME SANCTUARY THE CITY OF CHICAGO GIVES TO ILLEGALS!!!!!!  AND IF YOU NEED MORE COPS TO WATCH US, DEFUND PLAN PARENTHOOD TO PAY FOR IT!!!!!

    The "sanctuary" concept for illegals is basically that state or city law enforcement will not go out of its way to identify illegal immigrants.   But if illegal immigrants happen to be doing things that attract the attention of law enforcement because of the acts themselves, then their resident status may be one of the things that  law enforcement can use (deportation) if they have done something else illegal.
    A person who buys 20+ guns in a space of a year has the right to buy those guns.  But rightfully he also has attracted the attention of law enforcement in so doing.   They don't have the right to seize those guns without further evidence of nefarious intentions or if some portion of them are illegal weaponry.  But they sure have the right (I would even say the duty) to find out what the hell that guy is up to.  Which may mean following him a bit, paying him a visit, etc.  It's deterrence.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Mass shooting

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:05 pm