It happened again :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoePa

Another liberal approach to things -http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/26/los-angeles-burbs-crack-down-on-huge-homeless-camp-near-disneyland-fearing-new-skid-row.html

---

It looks like the Californicators "socialist utopia" ain't workin' so shyte hot,eh? Gee,whoda thunk that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoePa

Another liberal approach to things -http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/26/los-angeles-burbs-crack-down-on-huge-homeless-camp-near-disneyland-fearing-new-skid-row.html

---

Looks like Erie PA will be going Republican Joe. That must make you happy. Not since 1961 has Erie been Republican which would make this the greatest political upset in America this century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

It looks like the Californicators "socialist utopia" ain't workin' so shyte hot,eh? Gee,whoda thunk that?

---

Something like 1 in 4 are homeless in the Republic of Commiefornia. Yikes!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

There’s a huge difference between poking holes in paper and getting shot at !!

---

I was taught and trained to poke holes in my target. Tell me what the target is and I will poke holes. I am fully aware "Some" targets will try to poke holes in me at the same time, or like many "targets" eat me. Fine! I am ready to see who pokes better holes, or who gets to eat who.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by last5oh_302

Something like 1 in 4 are homeless in the Republic of Commiefornia. Yikes!

---

They are starting to post guards or do patrols now because the homeless have figured out they can "GRAZE" crops at night. What they don't eat ( berries, fruit, nuts),they damage and make it not marketable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoePa

No one is ok with children getting slaughtered - but it is stupid to pass laws that will not take guns away from bad guys but will take guns away from good guys - if the school wasn't a gun free zone things could have turned out much differently - yes that is true -these kids will someday run the country - that terrifies me but then there is always the chance that they will wise up as they grow older and have to take on responsibilities - me personally - I wouldn't be around to worry

Remember most of the problems our country has is because of the democrats pushing their liberal agenda - at one time we had institutions where mentally sick people could be housed - the liberals did away with that - we were not in debt the way we are today - they caused that to happen - our welfare programs are bankrupting the country - they did that - criminals are given a slap on the wrist instead of big jail time - they created sanctuary cities where criminals can hid from the law enforcement - illegal immigrants come into the country so that the democrats can get more votes - if you want to blame anyone for the shape our country is in look no further then the liberal democrats - Trump is trying to change things but it will take a long time because many of these problems are so entrenched in our society

And finally - we have the constitutional right to bear arms - we consider that is a basic right of every person to be able to defend themselves - even from the government if necessary - if states or cities enact laws that make it very difficult for a law bidding citizen to obtain a firearm the law in unconstitutional and will be thrown out - I have no problem with not allowing criminals, mentally sick or dangerous people from getting guns - background checks should be improved - the NRA had pushed for such laws - they also pushed for automatic minimum sentences for criminals who use a gun when committing a crime thus taking the sentencing away from liberal judges who give lenient sentences - there are a lot of laws on the books concerning criminals using guns but they are not applied as they should be - just look at illegal immigrants - it is against the law to enter our country without going through proper channels but nobody enforces the law - somethings got to change -

---

JoePa,

Here is the exact problem with this issue. You stated it yourself, you have a constitutional right to bear arms. That right is extended to every citizen whether they are classified as good or bad. You can't take away that right but you can certainly amend the constitution (however, this act would mean all legislators are on the same page and I don't think there is the political willpower right now in the US for that). Furthermore, when something like this happens, people have a right to voice their opinion that the US needs better gun control and storage laws. However, the second that happens, the usual suspects start to beat their chest about the 2nd amendment and their rights. The right to bear arms and the right to bear a firearms are two very different things. Gun control doesn't take anyone's right to bear arms away, a "bad guy" can still arm themselves with a knife for defense if they can't get a firearm by sensible gun control.

You state the 2nd amendment allows a person to defend themselves from the government if necessary. There has been only one group of people in the history of the US who has been subjected to government oppression and it has never been the group who are the most concerned about losing their "right" to bear a firearm.

Dyth

Dyth - the founders of this country had just gotten over fighting the oppression of the King of England - they knew that power can corrupt so they wanted to ensure that the citizens had a way of fighting this corruption - most of the constitution limits the power of the government - freedom of speech, freedom from search and seizure, freedom to remain silent - these were written to protect citizens from the government - including taking up arms against the government if needed - and the government could include any governmental agency - including the local cops

To change the constitution it is necessary for two thirds of the states to agree to any change - this will never happen with the 2nd amendment - and as far as the government oppressing people - talk to slaves, talk to native Americans, Japanese, Randy Weaver and the thousands of people mistreated by law enforcement every day -
,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoePa

Dyth - the founders of this country had just gotten over fighting the oppression of the King of England - they knew that power can corrupt so they wanted to ensure that the citizens had a way of fighting this corruption - most of the constitution limits the power of the government - freedom of speech, freedom from search and seizure, freedom to remain silent - these were written to protect citizens from the government - including taking up arms against the government if needed - and the government could include any governmental agency - including the local cops

To change the constitution it is necessary for two thirds of the states to agree to any change - this will never happen with the 2nd amendment - and as far as the government oppressing people - talk to slaves, talk to native Americans, Japanese, Randy Weaver and the thousands of people mistreated by law enforcement every day -
,

---

I understand that and what you just posted furthers my points. If the collective willpower isn't there to change the 2nd amendment, nothing will ever change. But I don't think that having armed teachers is the solution to this problem. The real solution is to change the notion the US public has the wording of right to bear arms automatically is synonymous with a firearm and while everyone has a right to defend themselves, not everyone has the privilege to do it with a firearm because of the real danger of misuse by individuals who shouldn't have access to them.

Trump's plan? Lol

Attachment 36756

Joe Pa, you are off the list to have to guard the schools against a shooter, Cadet ''''Donny Bone Spurs'''' said in a Speech Yesterday he will be running into buildings without a Gun to take these Bad Guys out. So all is Safe.

I'm not sure who they pay to go along after Donny Bone Spurs and clean up the he spews but hope he is paid good Money, because it's a 24/7 Job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoePa

So millions of kids are going to march with a bunch of liberals to take away our gun rights - kids who never had a full time job - never gave society anything but fed off of it all their lives - who know very little about life - they are so willing to give away what thousands of men fought and died for - freedom - gun registration like you have up in Canada is a bad idea because once the government knows who got what guns all it takes is passing a law to pick them up and there goes your right to defend yourself and your country -

And for you guys who think letting teachers have guns if they want to is a bad thing - your out in left field - there are a lot of intelligent people who own guns and know how to use them without endangering by standers - gun free zones are a product of progressive , liberal thinking with the long range intent to take all guns away - as a NRA member and someone who often carries a gun people should be glad that people like me are around when the SHTF - I have enough sense to react properly when and if I am ever faced with a shooter - surprise is a big factor and your ability to use cover when confronting a shooter is important - generally the shooter will spray an area with bullets rather than aim at individual targets - whereas I would be aiming at him from behind cover - he wouldn't have a chance - you better believe it

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dythbringer

I understand that and what you just posted furthers my points. If the collective willpower isn't there to change the 2nd amendment, nothing will ever change. But I don't think that having armed teachers is the solution to this problem. The real solution is to change the notion the US public has the wording of right to bear arms automatically is synonymous with a firearm and while everyone has a right to defend themselves, not everyone has the privilege to do it with a firearm because of the real danger of misuse by individuals who shouldn't have access to them.

---

What would you define as "arms"? Would I have the right to carry a spear or a sword, but not to have/carry a firearm? Even if the criminials have guns, you think people should maybe only have baseball bats.

In your last post you said that criminials don't need guns, because they could carry a knife for "defence". CONVICTED Criminials don't have the right to carry "ANYTHING". I have more rights in the US then a convicted criminal.

I am typing this post as I sit at a terminal in Newport, MN, and watch the armed Muslim guards with your "Assult" rifles, walk around the grounds of the mosque across the street.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG MAC

Joe Pa, you are off the list to have to guard the schools against a shooter, Cadet ''''Donny Bone Spurs'''' said in a Speech Yesterday he will be running into buildings without a Gun to take these Bad Guys out. So all is Safe.

I'm not sure who they pay to go along after Donny Bone Spurs and clean up the he spews but hope he is paid good Money, because it's a 24/7 Job.

---

http://www.commonsenseevaluation.com....376uHw6z.dpbs
Attachment 36762.........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

What would you define as "arms"? Would I have the right to carry a spear or a sword, but not to have/carry a firearm? Even if the criminials have guns, you think people should maybe only have baseball bats.

In your last post you said that criminials don't need guns, because they could carry a knife for "defence". CONVICTED Criminials don't have the right to carry "ANYTHING". I have more rights in the US then a convicted criminal.

I am typing this post as I sit at a terminal in Newport, MN, and watch the armed Muslim guards with your "Assult" rifles, walk around the grounds of the mosque across the street.

---

I define arms as a weapon (everything from a hammer to a firearm). The 2nd amendment states arms. It doesn't state firearms or guns despite the fact it was written when firearms were used by the populace. Yes, you have the right to arm yourself but not necessarily automatically with a firearm. Nothing in the 2nd amendment says that you do. I never said anything about law abiding citizens not have access to firearms. I think people should come to the realization that firearms in the improper hands are the problem here but no one wants to deal with that issue.

In my post I never refer to criminals. I use JoePa's terminology of bad guys. I inferred from his terminology a bad guy is a person who shouldn't have access to firearms because they are not a criminal until they point a firearm at a person and pull the trigger. There are plenty of people out there who would fall into this category but under the current US system, they still are allowed to have access to firearms.

Furthermore, you imply I stand with the militant left on their version of gun control based on your statement that those guards are carrying my "assult" rifles. Your statement is extremely disingenuous. I have stated many times on this forum that the AR-15 is not an assault rifle. I have stated that I think a person in Canada should be able to hunt with restricted firearms. I have also stated that a firearm should be classified by how it operates; not by how it looks.

Once again people have been killed by a person who was able to legally acquire firearms the way the US law is currently written. How many more times does this have to happen before people begin to understand that?

There is a balance. Canada has shown that. Is it perfect? No, I think it could be better. However, it works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dythbringer

In my post I never refer to criminals. I use JoePa's terminology of bad guys. I inferred from his terminology a bad guy is a person who shouldn't have access to firearms because they are not a criminal until they point a firearm at a person and pull the trigger. There are plenty of people out there who would fall into this category but under the current US system, they still are allowed to have access to firearms.

---

So a person does not become a criminal till they shoot someone with a firearm. They can rob, loot, beat, stab, rape as long as they don't use a firearm and they would NOT be a criminal? As I said a convicted criminal can not carry anything. You get in a argument with your wife and you can lose your right to bear arms.
The local Sheriff and the FBI had many many complants and reports of the latest guy making threats and doing things that should have red flagged him at least. Yet no one did anything. There is evidence coming out that there was an Obama government policy to give local schools districts more money if they decreased the number of charges layed against students. If the proper charges had been layed against this guy, he would have never been able to buy guns.

Think about it
https://pin.it/36dtymwkzrhwpi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

So a person does not become a criminal till they shoot someone with a firearm. They can rob, loot, beat, stab, rape as long as they don't use a firearm and they would NOT be a criminal? As I said a convicted criminal can not carry anything. You get in a argument with your wife and you can lose your right to bear arms.
The local Sheriff and the FBI had many many complants and reports of the latest guy making threats and doing things that should have red flagged him at least. Yet no one did anything. There is evidence coming out that there was an Obama government policy to give local schools districts more money if they decreased the number of charges layed against students. If the proper charges had been layed against this guy, he would have never been able to buy guns.

---

Reread my post again. Specifically where I said I inferred from JoePa what a bad guy is. I never said a person only becomes a criminal when they shoot someone with a firearm. Quit putting words into my mouth.

Ture, the FBI and Sheriff had many complaints about this guy. True, they didn't do anything about it. Had they done so, we wouldn't be having the conversation about this. But there was a failure by the authorities and Cruz was able to legally purchase a firearm despite needing no proof that he wasn't a danger to the public, of sound mind, and could prove he how to operate a firearm safely.

The US public accepts highly regulates items which, in the wrong hands, represent a real danger to the public such as explosives but they spew their collective speens when you speak about regulating firearms despite the fact a firearm in the wrong hands is a danger to the public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dythbringer

Reread my post again. Specifically where I said I inferred from JoePa what a bad guy is. I never said a person only becomes a criminal when they shoot someone with a firearm. Quit putting words into my mouth.

---

I am not putting words in your mouth, but your saying/typing basicly what I asked you about.

Snowwalker, what about the Shooter in Las Vegas, from what I have read and seen there is not one shred of evidence that this guy has any previous criminal related charges. So he isn't a bad Guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

So a person does not become a criminal till they shoot someone with a firearm. They can rob, loot, beat, stab, rape as long as they don't use a firearm and they would NOT be a criminal? As I said a convicted criminal can not carry anything. You get in a argument with your wife and you can lose your right to bear arms.
The local Sheriff and the FBI had many many complants and reports of the latest guy making threats and doing things that should have red flagged him at least. Yet no one did anything. There is evidence coming out that there was an Obama government policy to give local schools districts more money if they decreased the number of charges layed against students. If the proper charges had been layed against this guy, he would have never been able to buy guns.

---

Apparently,in American law,even when the Police and FBI knew that Cruz was nuts,there's still no mechanism in place where they can arbitrarily seize his firearm(s) without due process of law. A criminal must commit a crime before Police can lay charges or take away someone's lawfully held private property. It's called "freedom" guaranteed by The Second Amendment. The US Supreme Court has ruled on many occassions on that part of the Constitution,so,it's pretty much carved in stone. America is literally caught between a rock and a hard place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG MAC

Snowwalker, what about the Shooter in Las Vegas, from what I have read and seen there is not one shred of evidence that this guy has any previous criminal related charges. So he isn't a bad Guy.

---

Well that is the problem. No he "WAS NOT" a bad guy till after the shooting, at which time he was just a dead guy.

Every other shooter they have had, has had a history of problems with police, mental health issues, or red flags that should have been but were never put in to the records. With nothing in the records, there was nothing to show up in the back ground checks. The school district where the last shooting happened, was in a FEDERAL program that gave the district extra money for not laying charges. The fewer students that got charged for assults/threats the more money the school got.

They sold the lives of 17 people for a few extra federal dollars.