Notice From My Cold Dead Hands......

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
But you actually said something about Suggesting killing Senators. Nobody anywhere said that.
Try to keep up.

No on second thought don’t.

You’re just muddying the waters again.

Gun control needs to happen. Period!
Game over!
 
Fairly-Hard said:
But you actually said something about Suggesting killing Senators. Nobody anywhere said that.
Try to keep up.

No on second thought don’t.

You’re just muddying the waters again.

Gun control needs to happen. Period!
Game over!
Click to expand...
Gun control has already happened. It hasn't helped.
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:


Looks like a lowrider show
Click to expand...


Arrests made in this mass shooting.



Older gents. 56 and 48 year old.

Raynard French, 56, was arrested in Carson; Travion McCraw, 31, was arrested in Lake Elsinore; Antoine Newsome, 41, was arrested in Gardena; and Kenyon Siler, 48, was arrested in Long Beach, according to the news release.

All four were booked on suspicion of murder, and all were being held without bail.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Phatguysrule said:
I'd much rather see them reduce felony convictions only violent/harmful offenses retroactively and leave the gun restriction.

There are a lot of felons who are no threat to anybody. Overreaching in this way is just asking for pushback where ever possible.
Click to expand...
Gotta agree here. This is for someone under indictment. They cannot take your rights because you have been accused.
 
Fairly-Hard said:
Gotta agree here. This is for someone under indictment. They cannot take your rights because you have been accused.
Click to expand...

I agree. I will say though if a violent offender gets arrested and let out and buys a gun, nothing good will come of that.

We may see a rise in repeat offenses before the first one even goes to court.

So yeah I agree with removing felony charges for non violent offenses and keep the violent offenders in jail pending trial so they can't buy guns.
 
Chris Craig said:
I agree. I will say though if a violent offender gets arrested and let out and buys a gun, nothing good will come of that.

We may see a rise in repeat offenses before the first one even goes to court.

So yeah I agree with removing felony charges for non violent offenses and keep the violent offenders in jail pending trial so they can't buy guns.
Click to expand...
Yeah violent offenders in jail should probably be the norm. There are problems there as well. Domestic Violence can be included. The laws are tough. One issue is people abusing the domestic violence laws. We all know that can get messy.

The problem with indictment is that it could be used against a gun owner. Once they say they cannot buy one then the logical next step is they cannot own one. It's a bad place to go and will for sure raise a bunch of resistance. Gun control cannot be "targeting" or even remotely look like it could be manipulated.
 
Fairly-Hard said:
Gotta agree here. This is for someone under indictment. They cannot take your rights because you have been accused.
Click to expand...

What if the crime they're charged with is beating the hell out of their wife?

Or threatening to shoot up a school?
 
SlyPokerDog said:
What if the crime they're charged with is beating the hell out of their wife?

Or threatening to shoot up a school?
Click to expand...
Domestic Violence laws prevent people charged with DV from being released. They should not be able to buy a gun from jail though I'm certain it could happen.
Obviously IMO certain circumstances apply but the threat of shooting up a school seems pretty cut and dried for the FBI to revoke your gun rights. We already have to pass a background check to buy a gun. Biggest problems arise when you have someone who might be able to get a gun without registering it or doing the background check. Gun Shows and Private sales can circumvent any laws anyway.
Sometimes the point is if someone wants a gun bad enough he will get one. Sad to say it's true.
 
Chris Craig said:
I agree. I will say though if a violent offender gets arrested and let out and buys a gun, nothing good will come of that.

We may see a rise in repeat offenses before the first one even goes to court.

So yeah I agree with removing felony charges for non violent offenses and keep the violent offenders in jail pending trial so they can't buy guns.
Click to expand...
If somebody was arrested on a violent offense their guns can be taken before they are released. I'm sure they would gladly allow the police to search their house and help them unlock their gun safe if it gets them out of jail.

As long as they are allowed to collect the guns and be made whole upon being found innocent / nonviolent.

And if they aren't willing to do that, then they can just sit in jail until the trial. No big deal.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
What if the crime they're charged with is beating the hell out of their wife?

Or threatening to shoot up a school?
Click to expand...
If there is evidence you beat up your wife or threatened to shoot up a school you should absolutely not be allowed around your wife or any schools. And that's if you aren't locked up.

If for some reason you are released before trial it should be after turning in all guns, and with a GPS monitor to make sure you avoid those areas. And if you cut it off there should be an APB and all at risk people should be made aware and protected immediately.

So, those people shouldn't be let out pre-trial unless we are pretty sure they are not a threat.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Not true.
Click to expand...
Probably correct. They are supposed to. Lets just put it that way. In Oregon there is a mandatory arrest law. It gives someone a chance to get a restraining order and can hold repeat offenders in jail until trial. I have no idea about Texas?
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Any of y'all ever look at something like this? Seems like these would be great for people who want do be able to defend their families and property without having a device that can end multiple lives.

https://byrna.com/pages/learn-more-...uatBuSBHfcKzvz8MiqW1QFr3RqQPoqLhoCwegQAvD_BwE
Click to expand...
Yeah, if I didn't already have guns it would be handy, for sure.

But I can use my EDC for self defense while hunting (cougars can be sneaky) and for small game (very rarely).

And my .45 would even take down a deer if I happened upon one at close range while fishing during hunting season or just on a grouse hunt with my shotgun.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Yeah, if I didn't already have guns it would be handy, for sure.

But I can use my EDC for self defense while hunting (cougars can be sneaky) and for small game (very rarely).

And my .45 would even take down a deer if I happened upon one at close range while fishing during hunting season or just on a grouse hunt with my shotgun.
Click to expand...
Even as a gun owner, wouldn't there be value in having a home-defense option that doesn't involve lethal force? I mean, I assume you would have a second's hesitation before shooting another human being, even an intruder; I imagine that'd be less of an issue if death is off the table. Plus, the ability to propel high-velocity pepper-mace-infused projectiles could be useful even when you don't necessarily have a clean shot.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Even as a gun owner, wouldn't there be value in having a home-defense option that doesn't involve lethal force? I mean, I assume you would have a second's hesitation before shooting another human being, even an intruder; I imagine that'd be less of an issue if death is off the table. Plus, the ability to propel high-velocity pepper-mace-infused projectiles could be useful even when you don't necessarily have a clean shot.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Solid point. I might consider it if I had an extra few hundred bucks lying around. As it is, my 3 teenagers keep me pretty broke.

I'd hesitate shooting that at somebody as well. I can only imagine the lawsuit I'd have to deal with.

I'm not going to be shooting anybody if they aren't an immediate threat anyway. And in that situation, I wouldn't expect to hesitate either way.
 
calvin natt said:
let’s arm the teachers it’ll go swimmingly


Click to expand...

What kind of training does this SRO have? We've already established police aren't well trained or often even the right kind of people to be peace officers.

Nobody is suggesting forcing all untrained teachers to carry firearms. Quite the opposite.

This guy was dry firing in the school. There is no reason to even have that gun out of his holster. Dude shouldn't have any job that allows him to carry a firearm.
 
Last edited:
Phatguysrule said:
What kind of training does this SRO have? We've already established police aren't well trained or often even the right kind of people to be peace officers.

Nobody is suggesting forcing all untrained teachers to carry firearms. Quite the opposite.

This guy was dry firing in the school. There is no reason to even have that gun out of his holster. Dude shouldn't have any job that allows him to carry a firearm.
Click to expand...
All I know is he’s a SRO and given a gun. Think it’s safe to assume he had a certain level of training. And still fired through walls with kids around. So Mrs Thompson the 6th grade home ec teacher might not fare well either.
 
calvin natt said:
All I know is he’s a SRO and given a gun. Think it’s safe to assume he had a certain level of training. And still fired through walls with kids around. So Mrs Thompson the 6th grade home ec teacher might not fare well either.
Click to expand...
If he's "dry firing" a gun in any school then he is the wrong kind of person to have a gun in any official capacity.

Again, if Mrs Thompson isn't the kind of person who would avoid playing with a gun at school after training then she shouldn't be able to pass assessments to carry a gun at school.

Most teachers wouldn't have that problem.
 
iDvDvgC.jpg
 
Phatguysrule said:
If he's "dry firing" a gun in any school then he is the wrong kind of person to have a gun in any official capacity.

Again, if Mrs Thompson isn't the kind of person who would avoid playing with a gun at school after training then she shouldn't be able to pass assessments to carry a gun at school.

Most teachers wouldn't have that problem.
Click to expand...

So only the ones who “avoid playing with a gun” should back out of this. The good and smart ones would never do such a thing? What like if they pinky promise not to be an idiot we feel good about their newfound firearm skills and say congrats, here’s a gun, keep em in line?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top