Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another Mass Shooting: It's Those Darn Video Games!

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • https://www.threads.net/@cnn/post/Cz...c4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

    A man armed with guns and explosive devices was found dead of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound at a Colorado amusement park, potentially averting "an attack of devastating proportions," officials said.
    "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
    -aparch

    "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
    -INCH

    Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
    -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Drew S. View Post

      I don’t think you understand Maine’s laws. Police can and have taken guns away from people. I suspect the issue here was when they tried to contact him in September the brother knew he was uneasy and didn’t want the police to create some type of standoff situation(police shoot people all the time in Maine so it would be a rational fear for the family to have) so told them he would take care of it. For the family it’s obviously kind of an impossible situation to be in. The police shouldn’t have let it go.
      What law(s) did he break to have his guns legally taken from him? Be specific.

      If you can't identify one, then the fact that Maine police can and have taken guns away from people is irrelevant. Until he breaks a law which takes away his 2nd amendment rights, the police can do nothing.

      You keep voting to keep those laws pretty hard to meet. So all of the dead people appreciate all of your voting over the decades.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by MichVandal View Post

        What law(s) did he break to have his guns legally taken from him? Be specific.

        If you can't identify one, then the fact that Maine police can and have taken guns away from people is irrelevant. Until he breaks a law which takes away his 2nd amendment rights, the police can do nothing.

        You keep voting to keep those laws pretty hard to meet. So all of the dead people appreciate all of your voting over the decades.
        In Maine you don’t have to break a law to have your guns taken away from you.
        Originally posted by BobbyBrady
        Crosby probably wouldn't even be on BC's top two lines next year

        Comment


        • The question is, did he grow a conscience at the last minute? Or did bipolar kick in and send him into a sudden depressive spiral that left him with only enough energy to off himself?

          Either way, another ̶t̶e̶r̶r̶o̶r̶i̶s̶t̶ "misunderstood lone wolf" bites the dust.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Drew S. View Post

            In Maine you don’t have to break a law to have your guns taken away from you.
            So what do you have to do? What legal standard do the police have to meet before you can take a person's guns? You have to do something really wrong for anyone to consider taking your guns.

            Again, what did the guy do to have is guns LEGALLY taken from him, so that he could not sue and win over 2nd amendment rights. Be specific. And hindsight does not count, it had to happen in the moment so the police actually have liable responsibility.

            If it's as easy as you imply, then most guns should be taken from gun owners. Which isn't happening.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Drew S. View Post

              In Maine you don’t have to break a law to have your guns taken away from you.
              But if you're so mentally impaired you can't manage your own finances, you should still be allowed to keep your guns.

              Right?
              What kind of cheese are you planning to put on top?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by FadeToBlack&Gold View Post

                Even in places where red flag laws exist, you've got MAGA sheriffs publicly stating, "My department won't be enforcing this unconstitutional law!111!!!1!" (*blow raspberry*) effectively practicing nullification at the local level.
                I want to make sure this isn't missed. Just like with local jurisdictions refusing to enforce mask mandates, we have "I know better" sheriffs and police chiefs.

                Enforcement discretion is an important thing and it's vital we allow local law enforcement to use their best judgement. But sometimes their best judgement is demonstrably stupid.
                I gotta little bit of smoke and a whole lotta wine...

                Comment


                • Originally posted by rufus View Post

                  But if you're so mentally impaired you can't manage your own finances, you should still be allowed to keep your guns.

                  Right?
                  It a judge determines someone is a threat to themselves or others it shouldn’t matter how much money they have or don’t have, they should lose their guns.
                  Originally posted by BobbyBrady
                  Crosby probably wouldn't even be on BC's top two lines next year

                  Comment


                  • The drama continues https://www.pressherald.com/2023/10/...ocal-officers/
                    Originally posted by BobbyBrady
                    Crosby probably wouldn't even be on BC's top two lines next year

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Drew S. View Post

                      It a judge determines someone is a threat to themselves or others it shouldn’t matter how much money they have or don’t have, they should lose their guns.
                      And how do you get brought before a judge to decide that? Did the shooter reach that threshold? Who decides what a "threat" is?

                      Will a FB post get someone's guns taken?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Drew S. View Post

                        It a judge determines someone is a threat to themselves or others it shouldn’t matter how much money they have or don’t have, they should lose their guns.
                        The question now, as it was then, and as you continually attempt to wriggle around as if you don't understand the question, isn't a matter of whether they have money or not. It's whether their mental faculties are such that they are unable to manage what money they do have: forget to pay their bills, are taken advantage of by scammers or unethical family members, no longer remember where they might have accounts, etc.

                        You were firmly of the opinion that such a mental state should not deprive them of their 2A rights to own a weapon of destruction. And implying that it did was some sort of discrimination.

                        Just own the fact that you're an idiot.
                        What kind of cheese are you planning to put on top?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Drew S. View Post
                          Why won't you "Back The Blue"?
                          What kind of cheese are you planning to put on top?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rufus View Post

                            The question now, as it was then, and as you continually attempt to wriggle around as if you don't understand the question, isn't a matter of whether they have money or not. It's whether their mental faculties are such that they are unable to manage what money they do have: forget to pay their bills, are taken advantage of by scammers or unethical family members, no longer remember where they might have accounts, etc.

                            You were firmly of the opinion that such a mental state should not deprive them of their 2A rights to own a weapon of destruction. And implying that it did was some sort of discrimination.

                            Just own the fact that you're an idiot.
                            If a judge feels that how someone manages their finances are relevant in determining whether they should be restricted from owning firearms that is okay. I’m sure each judge has various criteria they use to decide each case.
                            Originally posted by BobbyBrady
                            Crosby probably wouldn't even be on BC's top two lines next year

                            Comment


                            • So you don’t know the criteria that would first make a person stand before a judge to have their guns taken, no do you know how the judge decides.

                              Just that it can happen, and that means that someone failed here. Got it.

                              In the mean time, you vote to protect 2A rights.

                              Really, you’ve done more to enable this guy than the cops. Remember, it was a finite time ago that the guns he used were illegal. Thanks to voters like you, they are now allowed. Swans coworker thanks you.

                              Comment


                              • Why does it all have to be down to a judge making a decision?

                                Why can't the legislatures pass laws?

                                Oh wait, cause then that would infringe on people's 2A rights. Best leave it up to a judge. Who of course would always make the correct and proper decision.
                                What kind of cheese are you planning to put on top?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X