• The forum will be going down at about 7:30 AM CST Oct 16 for maintenance. We should be down less than 1 hour.

  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Thousand Oaks victims

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I noticed that the gun forum was silent on this one too… But a different take here:

Thousand Oaks victims include college student and law enforcement officer

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/us/shooting-victims-thousand-oaks/index.html

CNN)At least 12 lives were cut short Wednesday when a gunman stormed a Southern California bar and opened fire.
On Friday, the Ventura County Medical Examiner confirmed the identities of all the individuals killed.

Here's what we know about the people who died in the shooting at the Borderline Bar & Grill in Thousand Oaks.

And yet Again we get a mass shooting: extended clips made this one possible. An ex combat soldier with PTSD. THIS incident however has opened up a new issue; that of gun restraining orders. Such restraining orders require that if a gun owner is found to be unsafe in some manner, that his guns be confiscated… THIS is a way different sort of Federal Law if they have their way and one that walks the line of Big Gummit taking away your second amendment rights. But if it’s a people problem, then do you pro gun folks think that it is a way of handling people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place and if so, how does that square with your fears of Gummit confiscations and our right to keep and bear?
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
264,767
Reaction score
82,448
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I noticed that the gun forum was silent on this one too… But a different take here:

Thousand Oaks victims include college student and law enforcement officer

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/us/shooting-victims-thousand-oaks/index.html



And yet Again we get a mass shooting: extended clips made this one possible. An ex combat soldier with PTSD. THIS incident however has opened up a new issue; that of gun restraining orders. Such restraining orders require that if a gun owner is found to be unsafe in some manner, that his guns be confiscated… THIS is a way different sort of Federal Law if they have their way and one that walks the line of Big Gummit taking away your second amendment rights. But if it’s a people problem, then do you pro gun folks think that it is a way of handling people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place and if so, how does that square with your fears of Gummit confiscations and our right to keep and bear?

stop lying. there is no proof "extended clips" (WTF IS THAT) made this possible. Standard capacity Glock 21 is 13 rounds. California Nanny State is 10 rounds.

California law prevented the off duty cops in the bar from being armed. Once again, it was a gun free zone that an active killer chose

This case shows a committed killer is immune from all the wet dream gun laws the scum bag politicians on California passed

He waited at least ten days before taking possession of the pistol after passing a background check

HE was actually interviewed by a crisis intervention team which cleared him

Under the stupid California laws, his standard issue magazine was "illegal" but someone willing to kill and die doing it isn't going to worry about that stupid law
 

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,744
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I noticed that the gun forum was silent on this one too… But a different take here:

Thousand Oaks victims include college student and law enforcement officer

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/us/shooting-victims-thousand-oaks/index.html



And yet Again we get a mass shooting: extended clips made this one possible. An ex combat soldier with PTSD. THIS incident however has opened up a new issue; that of gun restraining orders. Such restraining orders require that if a gun owner is found to be unsafe in some manner, that his guns be confiscated… THIS is a way different sort of Federal Law if they have their way and one that walks the line of Big Gummit taking away your second amendment rights. But if it’s a people problem, then do you pro gun folks think that it is a way of handling people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place and if so, how does that square with your fears of Gummit confiscations and our right to keep and bear?

Do you want to talk about the eulogizing of victims, or do you want to talk about gun control....make up your mind.
 

Bucky

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
21,585
Reaction score
4,298
Location
Washington
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I noticed that the gun forum was silent on this one too… But a different take here:

Thousand Oaks victims include college student and law enforcement officer

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/us/shooting-victims-thousand-oaks/index.html



And yet Again we get a mass shooting: extended clips made this one possible. An ex combat soldier with PTSD. THIS incident however has opened up a new issue; that of gun restraining orders. Such restraining orders require that if a gun owner is found to be unsafe in some manner, that his guns be confiscated… THIS is a way different sort of Federal Law if they have their way and one that walks the line of Big Gummit taking away your second amendment rights. But if it’s a people problem, then do you pro gun folks think that it is a way of handling people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place and if so, how does that square with your fears of Gummit confiscations and our right to keep and bear?

I heard one of the victims was also a survivor of the vegas shooting.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,493
Reaction score
21,690
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I noticed that the gun forum was silent on this one too… But a different take here:

Thousand Oaks victims include college student and law enforcement officer

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/us/shooting-victims-thousand-oaks/index.html



And yet Again we get a mass shooting: extended clips made this one possible. An ex combat soldier with PTSD. THIS incident however has opened up a new issue; that of gun restraining orders. Such restraining orders require that if a gun owner is found to be unsafe in some manner, that his guns be confiscated… THIS is a way different sort of Federal Law if they have their way and one that walks the line of Big Gummit taking away your second amendment rights. But if it’s a people problem, then do you pro gun folks think that it is a way of handling people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place and if so, how does that square with your fears of Gummit confiscations and our right to keep and bear?

If someone is considered so dangerous due to mental health issues that they need to lose their right to keep and bear arms? Then IMO they should either be institutionalized in a mental health facility, or diagnosed as too mentally ill to possess/access weapons.

In either case I would not object to their right to keep and bear arms being infringed. But no one should lose this right just on the say-so of another common citizen.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
71,196
Reaction score
40,542
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I noticed that the gun forum was silent on this one too… But a different take here:

Thousand Oaks victims include college student and law enforcement officer

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/us/shooting-victims-thousand-oaks/index.html



And yet Again we get a mass shooting: extended clips made this one possible. An ex combat soldier with PTSD. THIS incident however has opened up a new issue; that of gun restraining orders. Such restraining orders require that if a gun owner is found to be unsafe in some manner, that his guns be confiscated… THIS is a way different sort of Federal Law if they have their way and one that walks the line of Big Gummit taking away your second amendment rights. But if it’s a people problem, then do you pro gun folks think that it is a way of handling people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place and if so, how does that square with your fears of Gummit confiscations and our right to keep and bear?

That (bolded above) is far too vague to become a replacement for the constitutional guarantee of due process of law. We already have laws prohibiting those convicted of certain crimes or formally adjudged to be mentally ill and dangerous from having guns. I assume you want a federal law such as Maryland's 'red flag law' nonsense where anyone may request that a judge issue an order to confiscate 'known' guns from someone else without any criminal charges ever being made, much less a conviction or finding of being mentally ill and dangerous being required.
 

trixare4kids

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
45,596
Reaction score
31,814
Location
S. California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
stop lying. there is no proof "extended clips" (WTF IS THAT) made this possible. Standard capacity Glock 21 is 13 rounds. California Nanny State is 10 rounds.

California law prevented the off duty cops in the bar from being armed. Once again, it was a gun free zone that an active killer chose

This case shows a committed killer is immune from all the wet dream gun laws the scum bag politicians on California passed

He waited at least ten days before taking possession of the pistol after passing a background check

HE was actually interviewed by a crisis intervention team which cleared him

Under the stupid California laws, his standard issue magazine was "illegal" but someone willing to kill and die doing it isn't going to worry about that stupid law

Actually, unbeknownst to the gun-grabbing crowd, people like Long love gun control laws.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
264,767
Reaction score
82,448
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Actually, unbeknownst to the gun-grabbing crowd, people like Long love gun control laws.

gun control laws are to violent criminals as OSHA is to factory workers
 

Tom Horn

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2018
Messages
1,854
Reaction score
207
Location
TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It’s quite obvious he had a political motive in the slayings. How many seconds transpired from his tweet till he shot himself?
 

Maccabee

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2016
Messages
5,560
Reaction score
1,374
Location
Florida.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I noticed that the gun forum was silent on this one too… But a different take here:

Thousand Oaks victims include college student and law enforcement officer

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/us/shooting-victims-thousand-oaks/index.html



And yet Again we get a mass shooting: extended clips made this one possible. An ex combat soldier with PTSD. THIS incident however has opened up a new issue; that of gun restraining orders. Such restraining orders require that if a gun owner is found to be unsafe in some manner, that his guns be confiscated… THIS is a way different sort of Federal Law if they have their way and one that walks the line of Big Gummit taking away your second amendment rights. But if it’s a people problem, then do you pro gun folks think that it is a way of handling people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place and if so, how does that square with your fears of Gummit confiscations and our right to keep and bear?

The VT shooter killed 32 people with two pistols and 10 round magazines.
 

Bullseye

Fund police; Defund the politicians
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
33,960
Reaction score
11,300
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I noticed that the gun forum was silent on this one too… But a different take here:

Thousand Oaks victims include college student and law enforcement officer

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/us/shooting-victims-thousand-oaks/index.html



And yet Again we get a mass shooting: extended clips made this one possible. An ex combat soldier with PTSD. THIS incident however has opened up a new issue; that of gun restraining orders. Such restraining orders require that if a gun owner is found to be unsafe in some manner, that his guns be confiscated… THIS is a way different sort of Federal Law if they have their way and one that walks the line of Big Gummit taking away your second amendment rights. But if it’s a people problem, then do you pro gun folks think that it is a way of handling people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place and if so, how does that square with your fears of Gummit confiscations and our right to keep and bear?
Are you talking FEDERAL restraining orders? They already exist at local levels. And we have background checks through the FBI. Nobody I've seen objects to either.
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
15,989
Reaction score
6,925
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I noticed that the gun forum was silent on this one too… But a different take here:

Thousand Oaks victims include college student and law enforcement officer

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/us/shooting-victims-thousand-oaks/index.html



And yet Again we get a mass shooting: extended clips made this one possible. An ex combat soldier with PTSD. THIS incident however has opened up a new issue; that of gun restraining orders. Such restraining orders require that if a gun owner is found to be unsafe in some manner, that his guns be confiscated… THIS is a way different sort of Federal Law if they have their way and one that walks the line of Big Gummit taking away your second amendment rights. But if it’s a people problem, then do you pro gun folks think that it is a way of handling people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place and if so, how does that square with your fears of Gummit confiscations and our right to keep and bear?

The shooter was examined by mental health professionals and not found to be a danger. Would the federal,government have more competent mental health professionals than the state of California? Is that your point?
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
264,767
Reaction score
82,448
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The shooter was examined by mental health professionals and not found to be a danger. Would the federal,government have more competent mental health professionals than the state of California? Is that your point?

I suspect he didn't know that the shooter had been so evaluated.
 

CLAX1911

Supreme knower of all
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
53,663
Reaction score
10,993
Location
Houston, in the great state of Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I noticed that the gun forum was silent on this one too… But a different take here:

Thousand Oaks victims include college student and law enforcement officer

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/us/shooting-victims-thousand-oaks/index.html



And yet Again we get a mass shooting: extended clips made this one possible. An ex combat soldier with PTSD. THIS incident however has opened up a new issue; that of gun restraining orders. Such restraining orders require that if a gun owner is found to be unsafe in some manner, that his guns be confiscated… THIS is a way different sort of Federal Law if they have their way and one that walks the line of Big Gummit taking away your second amendment rights. But if it’s a people problem, then do you pro gun folks think that it is a way of handling people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place and if so, how does that square with your fears of Gummit confiscations and our right to keep and bear?

You could kill 12 people without extended magazines. So they didn't make it possible it's possible with just about any firearm.

As far as your question goes it seems disjointed and I'm having a hard time making sense of it.

So you think people should be against the federal government confiscating weapons from an individual who has a felony record?
 

JoanDavis

Banned
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
1,303
Reaction score
594
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If someone is considered so dangerous due to mental health issues that they need to lose their right to keep and bear arms? Then IMO they should either be institutionalized in a mental health facility, or diagnosed as too mentally ill to possess/access weapons.

In either case I would not object to their right to keep and bear arms being infringed. But no one should lose this right just on the say-so of another common citizen.

Didn't trump sign an executive order allowing mentally ill people to possess / access guns? trump has blood on his hands ....AGAIN!
 

zsu2357

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2017
Messages
6,763
Reaction score
1,950
Location
Great state of (cough,cough)Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
=jet57;1069283208]I noticed that the gun forum was silent on this one too… But a different take here:
Maybe we wait for a few facts.
And yet Again we get a mass shooting: extended clips made this one possible.
But Kalistan has all these gun laws that almost make it impossible to own a gun let alone with an extended 'magazine'. Blame a state next door?
An ex combat soldier with PTSD. THIS incident however has opened up a new issue; that of gun restraining orders.
So what you mean is a ban on Vets owning firearms. That's your issue you want to see opened up as a restraining order.
Such restraining orders require that if a gun owner is found to be unsafe in some manner,
Seems the Corps had know knowledge of this.
that his guns be confiscated…
And that's what it's all about.
THIS is a way different sort of Federal Law if they have their way and one that walks the line of Big Gummit taking away your second amendment rights. But if it’s a people problem, then do you pro gun folks think that it is a way of handling people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place and if so, how does that square with your fears of Gummit confiscations and our right to keep and bear?
https://www.dav.org/learn-more/news/2018/veterans-guns/
http://www.lastminutesurvival.com/2...tration-acting-as-backdoor-to-seize-firearms/
PTSD,SHELL SHOCK,BATTLE FATIGUE are the same, where were all the shootings after WW1 after WW2 and Korea and Vietnam? And don't say because there were less guns.
And you opened the door on the PTSD thing.
 

zsu2357

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2017
Messages
6,763
Reaction score
1,950
Location
Great state of (cough,cough)Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You could kill 12 people without extended magazines. So they didn't make it possible it's possible with just about any firearm.

As far as your question goes it seems disjointed and I'm having a hard time making sense of it.

So you think people should be against the federal government confiscating weapons from an individual who has a felony record?
I thought he was talking just about PTSD. I wouldn't think it's a felony.
 

zsu2357

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2017
Messages
6,763
Reaction score
1,950
Location
Great state of (cough,cough)Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Didn't trump sign an executive order allowing mentally ill people to possess / access guns? trump has blood on his hands ....AGAIN!
Summary: H.J.Res.40 — 115th Congress (2017-201
Shown Here:
Public Law No: 115-8 (02/28/2017)

(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)

This joint resolution nullifies the “Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007” rule finalized by the Social Security Administration on December 19, 2016. The rule implements a plan to provide to the National Instant Criminal History Background Check System the name of an individual who meets certain criteria, including that benefit payments are made through a representative payee because the individual is determined to be mentally incapable of managing them. (Current law prohibits firearm sale or transfer to and purchase or possession by a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective.)

This could be your wife or anyone else helping you navigate all the BS.
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,157
Reaction score
21,562
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Didn't trump sign an executive order allowing mentally ill people to possess / access guns? trump has blood on his hands ....AGAIN!

Should people with mental illness and disabilities be denied rights without due process?
 

Zalatix

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
3,228
Reaction score
662
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
stop lying. there is no proof "extended clips" (WTF IS THAT) made this possible. Standard capacity Glock 21 is 13 rounds. California Nanny State is 10 rounds.

California law prevented the off duty cops in the bar from being armed. Once again, it was a gun free zone that an active killer chose

This case shows a committed killer is immune from all the wet dream gun laws the scum bag politicians on California passed

He waited at least ten days before taking possession of the pistol after passing a background check

HE was actually interviewed by a crisis intervention team which cleared him

Under the stupid California laws, his standard issue magazine was "illegal" but someone willing to kill and die doing it isn't going to worry about that stupid law
Translation:

"I'd rather see a million kids die than see any gun control laws!"
 
Top Bottom