Would that be the same government that our esteemed friend thinks should be the ones entrusted with guns?
I don't know what he thinks but it's the same type of government incompetence that allowed that little scumbag in south carolina to buy the gun he used to shoot up a church. That didn't stop people from crying for more gun control. Makes no sense to me considering the officials are too incompetent to enforce the existing controls that should have prevented things.
If no more gun control would be effective (and was working) there wouldn't be any cries for any more gov involvement. You're basically saying nothing should be done. The incompetency is on all levels of gov not just the feds. So what's the solution if not better (universal) background checks (including gun shows) etc. Here is a 2013 article from the Wash. Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ground-checks-would-in-fact-reduce-gun-crime/ There is a way to improve keeping guns away from crazy people, criminals, etc. The argument that they can get them anyways of course has some truth to it but it's not full proof. The sickos would have problems getting guns if more red tape and it wasn't incompetent. Some of that incompetency on a local level isn't always innocent stupidity. PS people will always be able to find ways to get around the system. And with current laws people are being stopped before they can get a gun. If tighter and more comprehensive rules they would stop even more but not everyone. The good guys would get the guns.
I'm not saying that at all you fucking retard. Stop putting words in my mouth and respond to what is actually being discussed and said. I pointed out how the existing laws should have prevented the specific case being duscussed from happening and how the judge failed at reporting info in the database. Since the judge didn't report the guy was crazy like he was supposed how was anyone supposed to know he was crazy?? How you get from there to some canned left wing response is your own retarded problem.
"In Czechoslovakia there is no freedom of the press. Here there is no freedom from the press." - Martina Navratilova Government, government, it's our man …… if it can't do it The Fourth Estate can! http://www.rocklandtimes.com/2015/03/18/gun-map-publisher-janet-hasson-leaves-the-journal-news/ Gun Map Publisher, Janet Hasson, Leaves the Journal News Posted March 18th, 2015 The woman responsible for the publication of a controversial map of all gun permit holders in Rockland and Westchester counties resigned from the Journal News the last week of February, effective March 6. The publication of the map created a national sensation in late 2012 and early 2013, mostly in opposition to the Journal News’ decision. Locally, the map, published in the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut shootings, led to an outcry from thousands of law abiding citizens listed thereon and galvanized a strong opposition. Thousands of subscribers reportedly left the newspaper, most never to return. Law enforcement was particularly vocal in opposition to the map, as many cops and first responders’ addresses were listed. Though it is unlikely Hasson was involved in the editorial decision to publish the map, she defended it for weeks, until finally taking it down following consecutive thefts of guns from houses on the map. The Rockland County Times led coverage of the gun map controversy, gaining national and international exposure, particularly for the scoop that the Journal News had hired gun-toting guards to protect against blowback from the article, in spite of their anti-gun stance. Hasson had been publisher of Lohud.com and The Journal News. She has left Gannett and moved on to GateHouse Media owned-Providence Journal in Rhode Island. The Journal News said George Troyano, former vice president sales/advertising for The Journal News Media Group, is now serving as interim publisher. Coverage of the controversy remains available at: http://www.rocklandtimes.com/category/special-2/journal-news-controversy/ inShare
First I didn't reply to you, I just commented not to you but on the subject. But here is exactly what you said :"I don't know what he thinks but it's the same type of government incompetence that allowed that little scumbag in south carolina to buy the gun he used to shoot up a church. That didn't stop people from crying for more gun control. Makes no sense to me considering the officials are too incompetent to enforce the existing controls that should have prevented things." Another diatribe on gov incompetency and saying more gun control wouldn't have helped. I don't really care what your philosophy is. I asked for solutions and all you give are insults. Funny I've seen you comment to posters who threw out insults to you and asked them why they were resorting to name calling. So this is my last ever personal reply to you. But I will comment on this thread if I want to. It's a ridiculous one-sided thread, anyways.
so if a cop pulls over a drunk driver, lets him go and he goes on and kills someone would you cry for better dwi laws? because that's essentially what you're doing. answer the question. what new law would have prevented the crazy asshole from buying the gun if the judge failed to report he was crazy? you can say more laws, better background checks all you want but it's as shallow as a donald trump answer. no meat, just meaningless & brainless drivel.
Most cops arrest drunk drivers. If the cop let him go he should be fired. In that case (which is not a good example) there are laws on the books. But if it was a national problem and the laws were ineffective than you'd have to do something about it. Obviously the gun laws on the books presently aren't doing the job. Because there are loopholes and poor communication between gov agencies etc. So it has to be studied and changes implemented. And you can start with universal gun control. Again it doesn't eliminate the problem but it makes it harder to get a gun. People with good records don't have to worry they will be able to purchase. Why would you be against that?
One part of the problem in some localities is the time frame. If you want to buy a gun it has to be sold to you inside a specific number of days. Why not if any red flags hold up the purchase until everything can be checked. And if still any doubts re-checked. And with trained staff they might be able to spot someone who shouldn't be sold a firearm. And do a much better job.
Start by strict prosecution of those who allow the deranged to get them and that especially includes public "servants" who neglect their duties. Prosecution should include culpability in any crimes committed with those firearms much as the getaway driver is prosecuted for all the aspects of a robbery.
Would that include Dr.'s and the Clergy as well? I generally stay out of these discussions, as nothing really comes of them. On occasion someone does post something useful. Thank you.
The Second Amendment is a.....loophole? Who keeps the good records, of the people...? Oh, wait...the Government. The ones we are supposed to be protected from. Amend it, if you want to end it.
On an unrelated note... Now THIS....is concealed carry. http://www.wacotrib.com/news/police...cle_e9fe2a9e-13f1-5d26-9fff-ac9fc8bf72d1.html
Sucks for you guys in NY. Your commie POS gov/dictator is calling for more gun laws. http://news.yahoo.com/aide-shot-york-governor-urges-national-gun-control-145253885.html
Reread. There are certain immunities built into the court system but there is no immunity for misfeasance, malfeasance or, in this case, nonfeasance. People, regardless of their employ must be held responsible for their actions. This is no different than a fire marshal being prosecuted for falsifying records of inspections while at the same time his employing governmental body will be immune. Do you really have a problem with prosecuting those failing to perform their duty to protect the public if it involves the slightest regulation of the use of firearms?
