Bailey Holt. 15. Say her name NRA.

WinterBorn said:
Yeah, I sorta figured it was sarcasm.

I am certainly not ok with someone taking this young girl's life. I am also not responsible for it, simply because I own firearms.

But my right to own a gun had nothing to do with a 15 year old taking a gun to school and shooting people. I have never shot anyone. I am, according to the numerous background checks I have had, a perfectly legal gun owner. I strongly disagree with taking away a constitutionally guaranteed right from millions of people because of the actions of an individual.

Also, if I am not mistaken, the shooter was 15 years old. It is not legal for him to buy a gun.
Click to expand...

I was looking at the same thing.
Seeing as how it's already illegal for a 15 year old to possess a handgun, in Kentucky; what NEW law would have prevented this tragedy?
 
evince said:
loving your sister is NOT hating your brother
Click to expand...

Actually it was a test. I changed his last name to hers to see if anybody realized it. So far, nope. Can't call the name of someone whose you don't know or care to know. It is sexist to call her name and not his. It is also sexist to treat her as a bigger victim than him. The OP, and apparently you in their defense, just want to advance patriarchal sexism by playing the female up as a bigger victim.
 
domer76 said:
lol

Poor illiterate fucktard. What is with you RW cretins? You either can't comprehend a straightforward post or you insert your brainwashed notions into something that was never said.

How tough were those three years in 6th grade?
Click to expand...

You won't find out how tough 6th. grade is for a few years, that is if you make it to 6th. grade.
Maybe instead of insulting responsible gun owners who do not commit crimes with our weapons,
why don't you propose a rational solution that doesn't infringe on our Constitutional rights?
 
Threedee said:
I'm going to laugh about how leftists hate the Constitution, because, that shit never gets old. :cof1:
Click to expand...

Good, everyone needs a good laugh on Fridays ... Enjoy, my gift to you.

BTW ... thanks for the Gift that keep on Giving .... another Drumpf Blockbuster Story: Drumpf Lie about trying Fire Mueller
 
WinterBorn said:
11 is a statement of propaganda. It is intentionally misleading in order to produce knee-jerk reactions. Which it has done.

By contrast, your claim that 6 makes me much more comfortable is an outright lie.

You really don't bring much to the table do you? I mean, other than calling people names and generally being a hostile prick.
Click to expand...

I'm quoting this because I think its the first time in nine years that I have seen WB attack someone......that must make domer like, the worst poster ever........
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I'm quoting this because I think its the first time in nine years that I have seen WB attack someone......that must make domer like, the worst poster ever........
Click to expand...

Thanks, PMP. I consider that a very good compliment.

I try to stay on topic and avoid the hostility. But some people would test the patience of a saint.
 
christiefan915 said:
trump re-election ad: "Democrats that stand in our way are complicit in every murder committed by illegal immigrants."

Click to expand...

Big difference between Democrats being complicit in every murder by illegals and thinking those of us that want to exercise our 2nd amendment rights are complicit with the types of things in the OP. If you can't figure it out, you've proven the only thing you're good for is what you were born with.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I don't agree at all. I'm sorry you missed the irony. Your right to own a gun, my right to own a gun -- is nothing compared to a person's right to have their life to live. These words from our shared history trump even those of our Constitution: "[all people are] endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

A gun violated Bailey's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.... because someone else chose to use his 2nd Amendment right to have a gun to violate hers.

Are you okay with that?
Click to expand...

A gun used by an illegal that shouldn't have been here violated Kate Steinle's life.

Are you okay with illegals coming here and using guns to do what Jose Zarate to Kate's right to life?
 
Memo to self: buy 500 rounds of 7.62 NATO, pay NRA dues, pick up onions and garlic for pasta sauce


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I don't agree at all. I'm sorry you missed the irony. Your right to own a gun, my right to own a gun -- is nothing compared to a person's right to have their life to live. These words from our shared history trump even those of our Constitution: "[all people are] endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

A gun violated Bailey's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.... because someone else chose to use his 2nd Amendment right to have a gun to violate hers.

Are you okay with that?
Click to expand...

Just how did that gun violate anyone? Did it, on it's own, shoot her?
You liberals are a sad bunch by blaming the tool used by, but not the perpetrator.
 
Althea said:
How can you not know? Just run down the list of his attempts to erase Obama from the history books.

Oh, look...this time he got the NRA wing of Congress to act. Not an EO

So you agree with this?


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ng-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-n727221
Click to expand...

Yes, I do. I did not see it like the headlines said "Trump wants mentally ill to have guns!". I saw it as the ACLU and mental health advocates saw it. As a lumping of many people into a category of psychotics.

One thing to remember, if someone is dangerous, and receiving disability benefits, their name should already be in the system. The law requires it.

However, if someone is not dangerous, why include them with no allowances of them defending themselves before their name is added to the "Do Not Sell" list in the background check system.
 
WinterBorn said:
Yes, I do. I did not see it like the headlines said "Trump wants mentally ill to have guns!". I saw it as the ACLU and mental health advocates saw it. As a lumping of many people into a category of psychotics.

One thing to remember, if someone is dangerous, and receiving disability benefits, their name should already be in the system. The law requires it.

However, if someone is not dangerous, why include them with no allowances of them defending themselves before their name is added to the "Do Not Sell" list in the background check system.
Click to expand...
Weak argument. Every time someone commits mass murder, we hear about mental illness. All who receive benefits for mental issues should be in the database, and an individual can make their case if they want a gun.
 
Althea said:
Weak argument. Every time someone commits mass murder, we hear about mental illness. All who receive benefits for mental issues should be in the database, and an individual can make their case if they want a gun.
Click to expand...

So mental illnes, of any type makes them guilty until proven innocent? At their own expense?

Yes, we do often hear about mental illness after a mass shooting. But the medical professionals that are required by law to report such patients, and did not, never seem to be blamed. Why is that?

And do you think it is ok for someone to lose their rights based on a diagnosis made by a politician and not by a medical professional?

Should anxiety disorders be grounds for removing someone's rights?
Should learning disorders be grounds for removing someone's rights?
Should obsessive-compulsive disorders be grounds for removing someone's rights?
Should passive-aggressive disorders be grounds for removing someone's rights?

All of those can be the basis for receiving an SSI disability check.
 
WinterBorn said:
So mental illnes, of any type makes them guilty until proven innocent? At their own expense?

Yes, we do often hear about mental illness after a mass shooting. But the medical professionals that are required by law to report such patients, and did not, never seem to be blamed. Why is that?

And do you think it is ok for someone to lose their rights based on a diagnosis made by a politician and not by a medical professional?

Should anxiety disorders be grounds for removing someone's rights?
Should learning disorders be grounds for removing someone's rights?
Should obsessive-compulsive disorders be grounds for removing someone's rights?
Should passive-aggressive disorders be grounds for removing someone's rights?

All of those can be the basis for receiving an SSI disability check.
Click to expand...
Can you cite this law? I'm not familiar.

Funny...you are required to take an eye exam to get a drivers license.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top