DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Another Mass Shooting

So damn sad.. So very sad.

Indeed.

i bought my guns in oklahoma, i had to register them on post.

man i can't grab a bite to eat?

stop acting like some stalking ass ex girlfriend. that crap is annoying.

just a general question about registering guns.

How will registering a gun prevent things like this?

Man military base isnt quite what we was talking about..for someone who likes to hold people to a standard of facts..U laid a whopper of misdirection..I knew you didnt register anything in this state as a civi..and it was just a LITTLE disingenuous to suggest you bought your firearms and registered them and no one knocked on my door. To make a point on your stance.

another thing storing your weapons at the armory isnt quite registering..Just a place to hold them when u want to use them.

and I know u know that.

it doesnt..

Your premise above is just silly. It's just more the NRA is the boogyman rhetoric. What did the NRA have to do with the Paris attacks who have massively strict gun laws. I'm sure it was the NRA that caused Nidal Hasan to shoot up Fort Hood with a sidearm.

Rock I realize you're a major agenda poster and don't need the colored dots to play twister but you're better than this garbage.

it might be a small percentage, but people don't like paper trails, especially criminals.

and it goes back to my thing about irresponsible gun owners.

so let's say I own a gun. however, i had it just laying around, no in a safe or locked up. somebody breaks into my house, and takes my gun.

Well, if that gun is used in a crime, say, robbery or murder, i should be held somewhat responsible, as me being irresponsible lead to an illegal gun on the street used in a crime.

that will make people practice better gun safety. but right now, nobody will be held accountable.

Now arps, you're probably going "well, how often does that really happen?"

in the inner city, all the time.

Also, it ties into the background check loop hole, with making everybody DO BG's and register regardless on if it's a private sell or not. that will help the cops trace back to how they got the gun in the first place.

it could also possibly lead back to organized crime mobs, or in this case, maybe a terrorist group.

nobody did not on my door. i didn't try to deceive anybody, but if you got confused, that's on you. dunno what to tell you.

i had to register them for use on the range on base on my off time. we all do. if you're a single soldier, you can't even have them in your barracks, you gotta lock them up in the arms room.

If i could register my weapons when i had them here in ohio, i would. you trying to call me out was a bunch of Bull btw, as i already know the law. i practice what i preach.

'They came prepared,' Couple kills 14 in mass shooting

http://news.yahoo.com/14-dead-17-wounded-california-081816288.html

I'm sure just about everybody knows now, but a man and woman did this. Crazy. The woman looks to be his wife, but they're not positive.

Yes, I know the article was from CNN. That's why there's a cnn.com in the link, and yes, CNN is biased. They have moved farther and farther left since the clintons were in the white house. Thinkprogress is extreme left. If you can see the bias, you should work on that.

So, you're telling me that VA does not require backround checks for person to person sales, like if I sold a gun to my best friend. I already knew that. The article you posted from money.cnn.com states that backround checks are not required at gun shows. That statement is a falsehood.



It looks more to me that they use the name 'gun show loophole' untruthfully, as the article states, "Virginia law does not require background checks for gun purchases from unlicensed dealers or private sellers. Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) tried to change that, but his proposal was rejected by the Republican-controlled Virginia legislature." All gun sellers in VA gun shows are licensed dealers. You have to be licensed to sell there. A gun show and a private seller are two different things. If someone is selling guns illegally, they are selling illegally. You'd have as much chance as making illegal drug dealers get a license.



What facts?
Require a background check prior to the transfer of a firearm between unlicensed individuals - Most states don't make these people do backround checks. I wouldn't sell a gun to someone I didn't know well, would you?

Require firearms dealers to obtain a state license - Click on the link for 'license' on the sourced page. According to that link, "West Virginia has no law requiring gun owners or purchasers to obtain a license." They are stating two different things and misleading.

Regulate the transfer or possession of assault weapons, 50 caliber rifles, or large capacity ammunition magazines - What's an assault weapon again? A hunting rifle with different grips? How many mass shooting have there been with 50 cals? They tend to be unwieldy. You also realize that these shooters tend to carry extra mags, no matter the capacity?

Require gun owners to obtain a license, register their firearms, or report lost or stolen firearms - When you get a backround check, they know you bought a firearm and what it's serial is. That sounds like a registration to me. It also implies a license. Only a moron doesn't report a lost or stolen firearm.

Require reporting of mental health records to the NICS database - See HIPPA law.

Limit the number of firearms that may be purchased at one time - Once again, there is a backround check. If the police feel they need to follow up large purchases, they should.

Impose a waiting period before the sale of a firearm - Because someone in fear of their life should have to wait a week, right?

Regulate unsafe handguns - Would you buy an unsafe handgun? I wouldn't even buy from a private dealer until I saw it fired. This one is just odd to even have in a list. BTW, I consider 'unsafe' as meaning the gun has a problem, and might blow up in my hand. They're all unsafe if you're on the barrel end.

Significantly regulate ammunition - Really? This is the liberal dream, to make the ammo illegal because they can't fight the 2nd. If you follow the link, it says:
•Require a license for the sale of ammunition;
•Require sellers of ammunition to maintain a record of the purchasers;
•Require a license to purchase or possess ammunition; or
•Prohibit the possession, transfer or use of armor-piercing or other unreasonably dangerous ammunition, although the federal prohibition on certain kinds of armor-piercing ammunition applies.
That is what they mean by 'regulate ammo'.

Allow local governments to regulate firearms - The state does.

Allow local governments to regulate firearms - The state does.

I like your smartgunlaw.org site. If you can't see the bias in that one, you're just blind. Their biggest complaint in your last link is that private gun sales are not tracked. Let me ask you, as you are a dope smoker, when will your dealer get a license so his sales to you are tracked, or is that the government's business? If you are making private sales to someone that couldn't pass a backround check, like a felon, you are committing a crime, or you're willfully making an illegal sale.

Well, if that gun is used in a crime, say, robbery or murder, i should be held somewhat responsible, as me being irresponsible lead to an illegal gun on the street used in a crime

People get held liable for this all the time..especially if they didnt report it stolen

Also, it ties into the background check loop hole, with making everybody DO BG's and register regardless on if it's a private sell or not. that will help the cops trace back to how they got the gun in the first place.


They already have a very effective way of tracing them..you need to really educate yourself on gun laws you sound ignorant/uninformed on the subject.

good luck he isnt knowledgeable on the subject..he sounds like a lefty websites talking points.

i knew it. everything was biased. CNN is biased, NBC is biased, the .org sites are biased. my mom is biased, your dog is biased.

and they sell to people they don't know ALL THE DAMN TIME ERIK.

man, open your eyes.

there's a lot of illegal firearms on the street that cops can't trace back to.

but you already knew that, right? mr. knowledgable.

at this point, you and Erik don't even know what you're arguing. I proved my point about the BG checks, you guys are just stubborn.

I'm going back to the topic at hand now, and trying to figure out motive as to why some rich woman from qatar would bounce and do this.

feel free circle jerking with your boy.

ok and? lets say they make everyone do nics/ register how in the hell does that stop anyone from killing?? All it does is pile on responsible gun owners

Oh jesus man ..but you already knew that, right? mr. knowledgable

yeah your right I'm a dumbf...I'm not the one putting out straight up lies you are with your registering bull you spewed.

Much smarter then u on the subject thats for sure..You intimidated by people smarter then you??

I educate myself from multiple view points on a lot of stuff..grow up or stay in your bubble. I dont really care.

Take your jab and stuff it MR. uninformed.

intimidated by what?

man, if i get intimidated by a faceless poster on a message board, i need to reevaluate my life choices.

I dont really get it though. If my gun is in my house and someone breaks in, steals it, then uses it in a crime I should be responsible? What? That makes no sense.

And you think those sites aren't biased? I'd like to know. Quite simply, if you buy from a licensed dealer, you get a backround check. If you buy privately, you don't. They will be able to regulate private sales to legal users as much as they can gun runners to criminals.

These idiots that have never had a criminal history that plan out a shooting, like the lovely couple yesterday, are going to be able to get weapons legally, always. All they have to do is plan for their 'waiting time' if there is one, buy ammo slowly, or buy illegally.

i need to reevaluate my life choices.

Well you got one thing right smart guy.

In some states yes..especially if not reported. Well alot of things dont make sense with gun laws

was that the best you could come up with? "smart guy?"

lol.

and once again you missed the entire point in your journey to prove whatever it is you're trying to prove.

i never once said this will prevent this, i'm talking general gun control. i've stated over and over that people are gonna do this regardless on other threads.

i've also stated in THIS thread that this isn't about guns, it's about the people that did it, and what their motives are.

i simply responded to your side convo, and of course you and your sidekick, Robin, ran with it.

dont like intimidated..ok how about don't like..cant handle..take your choice..and jab away.

can't handle what?

lol, man what are you talking about? you sound like Versatile Dog right now.

If it's not going to stop it, then why have gun control? You make no sense. Are you finally saying that gun control laws only affect those that buy legally?

Ok you are what I thought you are..guess you and i have no more to discuss.

Tried to do right by you and treat u civil and you repay that by poking fun of or taking a crack at my intelligence/knowledge..If your smart then I must be freaking Einstein.


Take ur jabs and stick it..

what i've been talking about is irresponsible gun ownership.

you're acting like it's pulling teeth to have parents prevent their kids from grabbing their guns. those sort of situations. i having it locked up in a safe when they're not home just in case of home burglary.

thats all i asked. i threw out the suggestion about registering it, but it doesn't matter.

i make perfect sense. you're getting hung up on the wrong things, and not paying attention to what i'm saying.

as usual.

lol, what?

i never once poked fun at your knowledge. i'm poking fun at your senseless dribbling about...well, nothing.

last i checked, you're the one saying i wasn't knowledgable on the situation.

seems to me you can dish it but can't take it.

i brush my shoulders off with any jab.

it seems like nobody wants to talk about the topic, though.

nobody wants to discuss motive of the shooters, or anything of this nature.

No I like debate with out lies which you did..at the least was dishonest..but when someone tries to teach someone who obviously is ignorant on the subject and get cracks about their/knowlege on the topic.

Calling you ignorant isnt a jab..just meant you sound unknowledgeable on the subject..and bubba I can take it back just fine..just not from a liar or someone who is spreading bad information. And then makes cracks about their knowledge.

Like I said we have no more to discuss on this issue.

I'd love to talk about their motives. We will never really know, as they're both dead. Seeing as they were well prepared, had sought out weapons and manufactured explosives, this was well planned. This is not an attack by mentally ill people, as mental illness is usually not contagious except in extremist groups.

When you come up with a way to tell who is an irresponsible gun owner before they go out and shoot a bunch of people, let me know. You were talking gun laws, and posted articles on gun laws. If you want to talk about this shooting in general, practice what you preach.

The various media outlets, certain politicians, and law enforcement agencies are pushing the gun control canard to avoid calling this what it pretty obviously is ... home-grown jihad.

I read that the male shooter had recently traveled to the middle east. Not sure if that relevant. The article also said that they were wearing "assault clothing" (Im not even sure what that is)

He went to Saudi Arabia and brought back his wife. They're not sure of his other activities in his month there.

Swish and I have been round and round on this issue many times, but since you are new to the melee...

I'm against the militarization of cops too, but my definition of what militarization is much more specific. I also draw the distinction between the need/availability of certain equipment, and the how/when that equipment is used.

Yesterday absolutely showed the NEED for such equipment. Now how and when that equipment is used, I certainly think is a good discussion to have and an area on the subject where we could be closer in our viewpoints. For example: there has been a significant increase in the use of SWAT units for warrants service. I think it's totally appropriate to review the circumstances when they are deployed. I think there is a big difference between serving a warrant on a known drug dealer with past convictions for violent crimes vs. a guy who missed court and has a past charge for resisting arrest.

When it comes to MRAPs, Swish is more scared of how they look then their actual function. An MRAP and the Brinks's armored truck have the EXACT same function: to protect the occupants. The only real difference is that an MRAP as he pointed out is designed to protect against IED's. Are we likely to get hit by an IED here? Probably not. But so what? A design to protect against a certain type of weapon system is defensive in nature. A swat team rolling up in an MRAP doesn't gain any more of an offensive capability than the Brink's truck gives them. All it does is provide additional protection from something not likely to happen.

It's the equivalent of them putting bullet proof glass in my Crown Vic, and claiming that it is a danger to the public. It doesn't make sense.

I'm going to close this post here because I know I'm starting to hijack the thread. But to give you an idea of my take on 'militarization'.. .if you have a problem with an MRAP or that I have an AR, then it stands to reason police departments should no longer hire veterans because 'militarization' is more than just weapons and equipment.

I don't lie.

but yea, we are done.