Cruz blames Dems for politicizing shootings
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) accused Democrats on Thursday of seizing on mass shootings to push a political agenda, saying that calling for increased gun control after such tragedies is "not the right answer."
"The reaction of Democrats to any tragedy is to try to politicize it," Cruz said on "Fox & Friends." "So they immediately start calling that we've got to take away the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. That's not the right answer."
The Texas Republican recalled travelling to Sutherland Springs, Texas after a deadly mass shooting at a church there last year.
"When I was at the hospital with the victims, with the victims' families, over and over again what they said to me in Texas - they said gun control is not the answer here," Cruz said.
Cruz's comments came a day after a gunman opened fire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., killing 17 people.
The shooter was arrested Wednesday and identified as 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz, a former student at the school who had been expelled for disciplinary reasons. He was charged Thursday with 17 counts of premeditated murder.
The shooting reignited calls from some lawmakers and advocates for tighter gun-control laws.
Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) urged members of Congress on Wednesday to "find the courage" to pass legislation addressing gun violence. Giffords emerged as an outspoken advocate for tighter gun-control laws, after she was shot and critically injured in 2011.
"Even in our grief, we must summon the courage to fight against this fear. We must find the courage to imagine a country where these massacres do not occur," she wrote on Twitter. "Our leaders must find the courage to escape the confines of their politics & pursue the moral necessity of peace & safety."
Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) also demanded on Wednesday that President Trump "get off his ass" and work with lawmakers to pass gun-control legislation.
"I invite him to get off his ass and join me in trying to do something about it," Moulton tweeted, referring to Trump.
Tags
You might want to check the news today and, see what Trump said yesterday, about due process and, guns.
I'm still waiting to hear what "MORE" gun laws than we already have are needed, that will actually STOP things like this happening
Raise the age to purchase an assault style rifle to 21. I needed a think tank to contrive it.
.
Before you start babbling off about ways around it, there are always ways around laws, look at Trump. We aren't gonna stop 100% of school shootings, but if the law stopped 1%, wouldn't it be a step in the right direction.
Most people are out of High school by 21, and probably wouldn't still be hung up about something.
It's a step in the correct direction, or does doing nothing again, keep getting us closer to solving this horrible dilemma ?
Raise the age to purchase an assault style rifle to 21.
I can't even buy and Actual "Assault rifle" without going through a years worth of paperwork, background checks and just waiting.
Bet you can't either.
Any "Rifle" can be made to "look" like something else. The Internet is full of neat little plastic stick ons to make something LOOK badass.
Did you know you can buy ALL the pieces of a Semi-Auto AR15, except for ONE, without going through an FFL person ? Of course, you still need that one piece to complete the gun, so you'll be buying it through a gun shop or through and FFL person anyway. That means "Checkup" TIME !
Actual "Assault rifle"
is that actually like an assault style rifle ?
Why not just concede it would make sense ?
What is an "Assault Rifle" in your mind ?
R U attempting to assault my intelligence, cause I'm on a high sodium diet.
I get your point, you get mine. Some of us are even willing to agree with people on points, and admit it openly.
R U attempting to assault my intelligence, cause I'm on a high sodium diet.
Am I ?
"I get your point, you get mine"
Your point is to raise the age limit to 21 on individual "Legal" purchases of ANY long gun...right ?
I don't have a problem with that.
Don't see how it's going to change anything though.
Don't see how it's going to change anything though
Well we are also in agreement we can't stop all mental cases from acting out.
He may not of went out and illegally sought and purchased this rifle, if he was required to be 21.
We'll never know. Who would seriously be inconvenienced here, and wouldn't their inconvenience be worth the lives of children, guilty of attending school...
Who would seriously be inconvenienced here
Shrug. Not me anyway.
The way kids are these days, I'm an advocate for making the driving age 21. Now wouldn't that be a political debate for the ages. 
Did you know you can buy ALL the pieces of a Semi-Auto AR15, except for ONE, without going through an FFL person ? Of course, you still need that one piece to complete the gun, so you'll be buying it through a gun shop or through and FFL person anyway. That means "Checkup" TIME !
Even the Pentagon says that the AR-15 is more deadly than the M-16, tell me, can you buy an M-16, legally?
The M16 uses the same round as an AR15 and is "Select" fire. How can a "machine gun" be less deadly than a "Semi-Auto" AR15
The AR-15 is less likely to jam when fired. I have fired both and, an M-16 has a problem with jamming when fired to quickly, the AR-15 doesn't have that problem.
M16, or A1, or XM16E1, or A2,or A3,or A4 ?
ALL of them ?
an M-16 has a problem with jamming when fired to quickly
Not the one i was issued while serving. Both the AR-15 and M-16A1 have the same problem. Like any auto or semi-auto they could jam but that was usually because they were excessively dirty. using bad ammo or where otherwise in bad repair.
I've found both to be equally reliable if properly maintained and operated.
Not me, the A1 I was issued tended to jam after three shots, clean or, dirty and, trust me, when I was in the field it stayed clean, I just never fired more than three shots without breaking it down and, cleaning it, after the first time it jammed on me.
Then you had a faulty weapon, faulty ammo, etc.
Was it selective fire? Did it fire three round bursts?
On my M-16, there was a lever on the left side of the weapon, it was marked, safe, simi, auto, the auto function allowed you to fire an entire clip with one pull of the trigger.
I remember that in M16 training. The instructor selected auto at the range just to show us what it would do and then threatened us all with a court martial if we selected auto while shooting at our targets.
During my training we were allowed later on to use auto to simply fire three round bursts at targets, so, that we could get the feel of it. I don't know what your MOS was, mine was 19 Delta.
I was Air Force so we used AFSC (Air Force Specialty codes). I was a 907 before they changed it to 4b something or another, Bioenvironmental Engineering Technician.
The only reason I had to train on the M16 after basic was because I had a mobility assignment. It makes no sense to me to give me a Geneva Convention card and then hand me a rifle. Thankfully, qualifying wasn't that hard so I didn't have to keep doing it over and over again.
The only reason I had to train on the M16 after basic was because I had a mobility assignment. It makes no sense to me to give me a Geneva Convention card and then hand me a rifle. Thankfully, qualifying wasn't that hard so I didn't have to keep doing it over and over again.
LOL, you're lucky, my training started with the M-16 and, went on from there in other weapons. A 19 Delta is recon or, Armored Cavalry, you know, tanks, APC's, heavy weapons.
Okay then, you did shoot an A1. What we called “selective fire” didn’t start until the A2’s. They had no full auto selection from that point forward. Only single and three round burst.
A good change for overall tactical accuracy but certainly not as fun to fire. I feel sorry for those that never got to fire a M-16 on full rock and roll,
Okay then, you did shoot an A1.
Yep, it sure wasn't any kind of steak sauce either, of course it made steak sauce out of whatever it hit.
How about we bring this one back and, make it permanent.
There were a bunch of loopholes in that act.
5 Research studies done on the "before's and after's", and the conclusions were that the Federal Assault Weapon ban produced almost no significant results in reducing violent gun crimes and was allowed to expire, since those type weapons in question were a very small percentage of all gun violence.
So, tell me, how many mass shootings have there been with a .38?
So, tell me, how many mass shootings have there been with a .38?
Is there a statistic on that ?
Is there a statistic on that ?
That's the point, there isn't because there haven't been any mass shooting with a .38 or, any other handgun. Another point, something I heard from one of the doctors who took care of the Parkland kids when they were brought into the hospital, the .38 or, 9mm round does not tumble when it enters the body, it makes a hole in whatever organ it enters, however, the AR-15 round when it enters the body does tumble, destroying whatever organ it hits. The Parkland kids, those that were still alive when they entered the hospital, couldn't be saved if the bullet hit an organ because that organ was destroyed by the impact of the bullet, she said that if it had been a 9mm round, which she claimed to have treated before, she could have saved the kids but, with the destruction from the AR round the kids didn't have a chance.
That's the point, there isn't because there haven't been any mass shooting with a .38 or, any other handgun.
Link ?
Stat ?
I hear there were 19 People shot by a simple 9 mil. pistol at the Gabby Gifford shooting.
Weird huh !
How many died? We are talking deaths here and, I do believe that Giffords, who was shot at point blank range survived that shooting, there were three who didn't including a little baby. As I said before, someone shot with a 9mm has a better chance of surviving a shooting that someone shot with an AR-15, which is a weapon of war, it is intended to kill humans, not to maim them, not to simply stop them, but, to kill them. The AR-15 was never meant to deer hunt, elk hunt or, any other kind of hunt, except for hunting humans, that is what it was designed for, that is what it was meant for and, that is the only thing it is good for, hunting humans.
Wrong....again...Seems like PEOPLE with semi automatic handguns are more responsible for mass shootings in the US than semi rifles. I admit, I don't know much about weapons, I only needed to qualify with a Glock when I stood quarterdeck watches on my ships. Never really fired anything else than those.
As has been discussed over and over again. It is not the weapon that causes the deaths, it is the person. The NRA and the weapon hold zero responsibility (with the exception of the weapon used) for the Parkland shootings.
Good comment Bugsby. I believe when 3 or 4 people are shot, it is considered a mass shooting. That's the reason there are many more handguns responsible for mass shootings than these high number of wounded and dead victims we are seeing today by AR15s.
The objective today should be to stop these mass shootings in schools and 'Protect the Children', not by laws, but by some sort of security the same way we protect people flying around the country and all government facilities. What's the downside of putting armed security in every school in this nation now?
If we want to have the debate over guns, we can have it. We have time, but we don't have any time to waste in 'Protecting the Children'. Even Wayne LaPierre has tried to convince us for years to make the move. As someone said, we have 300,000 guns already and there is no law that will 'Protect the Children' today and no law that will 'Protect the Children' tomorrow, next week or anytime in the future better than armed security in the schools right now.
there isn't because there haven't been any mass shooting with a .38 or, any other handgun.
That tells me right there that we can't rely on your sources to be accurate. Biggest mass school shooting ever in the US at Virginia Tech with two 9mm handguns. 32 dead.
Biggest mass school shooting ever in the US at Virginia Tech with two 9mm handguns. 32 dead.
I think you forgot something.
On the night of October 1, 2017, a gunman opened fire on a crowd of concertgoers at the Route 91 Harvest music festival on the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada , leaving 58 people dead and 851 injured. Between 10:05 and 10:15 p.m. PDT , 64-year-old Stephen Paddock of Mesquite, Nevada , fired more than 1,100 rounds from his suite on the 32nd floor of the nearby Mandalay Bay hotel. About an hour after he fired his last shot into the crowd, he was found dead in his room from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. His motive remains unknown.
The "biggest mass shooting ever" wasn't in Virginia. Try again.
Sometimes Wikipedia can be your friend.
I only needed to qualify with a Glock when I stood quarterdeck watches on my ships. Never really fired anything else than those.
Go get a ballistics dummy and, an AR-15, take your Glock and, fire five rounds into the dummy, then take the AR and, fire five rounds into the dummy, see which one does more damage to the dummy, then come back and, talk to me.
If you were really worried about gun homicides you wouldn’t worried about the gun du jour (AR-15) but rather handguns since the largest majority of all gun homicides in the US are caused by handguns and not rifles. I’m sure going after rifles makes some of you feel good but it’s still just like putting whipped cream on shit.
I understand what you are saying here but, the issue isn't all guns, it is the FACT that a military grade weapon is available, the AR-15 is military grade and, shouldn't, in the opinion of many vets, be allowed in the hands of civilians, most handguns have been better at home defense than an AR-15 for many years. You can't use an AR-15 for hunting since it destroys the meat of the targeted animal, making it useless for consumption, face it, the AR is meant for only one thing, killing human beings.
Yeah, liberals love to have a reason to pass more laws. From another thread...
|
I'm still waiting to hear what "MORE" gun laws than we already have are needed, that will actually STOP things like this happening.
The only thing that can possibly help stop tragedies like this is to take our attention off the guns and put them on 'Protecting the Children'. Stop falling for the MSM and Left's desire to load the books down with as many laws as they can that won't accomplish anything. We need to have protection in the schools just like we have in all the other places where people could be victims of mass shootings. Unfortunately, the children don't seem to be where these people are focusing.
Trump is focusing on 'Protecting the Children' and that's what we all should be focusing on. Let's pass a law people can't rob you. That's about how effective anything they can come up with today, but securing the schools as the very first objective and it needs to be done right away because we can't see them and we don't know who they are, but you can bet there are some who are already plotting the next shooting right now.
Stop falling for the MSM and Left's desire to load the books down with as many laws as they can that won't accomplish anything.
Actually Six, they will accomplish something. They will certainly be written as broadly as possible. Then, the first and second level bureaucracies (you know, the deep state) will use those overly broad laws to write regulations causing large categories of firearms to be made illegal.
They'll start with a description of an AR-15 and end up banning everything down to a 10-22 using the same overly broad law.
We need to have protection in the schools just like we have in all the other places where people could be victims of mass shootings.
Exactly !
What's deemed "Important Places" .....seem to have many guns protecting them.....ALL THE TIME. 
Repubs always jump on the bandwagon to politicize these things. The Sand Bernadino shooting, trump was all over it literally within 10 minutes screaming how it was the dems fault. Orlando shooting, he blamed "failed immigration laws and open borders", without knowing the shooter was born and raised right here in the USA.
Cruz really needs to STFU. He is just embarrassed that this happened and now he is being called out for not having the backbone to stand up and do SOMETHING to stop school shootings, (or any shootings for that matter). He is another NRA shill, just like El Thirsto and trmptard. Just like Ryan taking 500k from the koch brothers to ram through the taxscam, the NRA shills will do nothing...again, and more kids will die for those all so precious NRA dollars.
Cruz is a patriot for standing up to you America haters.
The AR-15 is the most owned firearm in America. It is the preferred defense weapon for women. 99.9% of AR-15 owners have never and will never use their weapon in a crime
We don’t have a firearms crisis. We have a problem with morality and respect for life.
Facts about AR-15 Ownership
“Devotees say the AR-15 has been wrongly demonized, arguing that the vast majority of owners never use it in a crime, and that despite the rifle’s use in mass shootings, it is responsible for a very small proportion of the country’s gun violence.
Thanks to that ardent following, and shrewd marketing, the AR-15 remains a jewel of the gun industry, the country’s most popular rifle, irreversibly lodged into American culture.”
“Why Young Women Want AR-15s
As young women, we prefer an AR-15 “assault” rifle with a 30-round magazine for self-defense.
AR-15s are the most popular rifle in the U.S.; more than 3 million Americans own one. And its popularity isn’t with criminals — assault rifles account for only 0.6 percent of murders every year. Rather, the semi-automatic AR-15 is the gun of choice for many hunters, target shooters, and home defenders.
Accuracy? Check. Ease in handling? Check. Intimidation factor? Check. An AR-15 might be a woman’s best friend. We are rational women who, as law-abiding citizens, understand the need — and the right — to defend ourselves. We don’t want to be caught underprepared in the kind of desperate situation that happens too frequently to people across America.”
Cruz is a patriot for standing up to you America haters.
Isn't Cruz a Latino white supremacist like the shooter?
Devotees say the AR-15 has been wrongly demonized, arguing that the vast majority of owners never use it in a crime
While 99% of AR-15 owners may never commit a crime with their AR-15's, a large percentage of mass shooters have used an AR-15 in their crimes.
Also, let's be clear, if this was a home made explosive device this kid had built using the Anarchists cookbook there is no question we'd have all sorts of conservative Republicans calling for bans on the book or increased oversight of hardware stores that sell the parts needed, maybe even suggestions of having to show ID why buying nails like they do when buying Sudafed. In that case it would be the bomb that killed 17 people, not the person. But because he used an assault rifle it's the person pulling the trigger, not the weapon of mass murder that allowed him to take so many lives so quickly.
Devotees say the AR-15 has been wrongly demonized
Here's a great article from a trauma surgeon about what an AR-15 does to humans:
Cruz is a patriot for standing up to you America haters.
Ted Cruz was born in Canada. He sold out his country to live here. A patriot he isn't. He is a disgusting religious POS who hates America and it's core values.
The AR-15 is the most owned firearm in America. It is the preferred defense weapon for women.
How many before it IS a problem?
and 10 million less America haters like you
So anyone who does not adhere to your own political views or party are America haters? What about those who have served and are serving in our military to preserve the freedoms of our country who are/were not Republicans? Yeah.....they hate America so badly they refuse to put their own lives at risk their their country, and some make the ultimate sacrifice for it.
Your level of hate against anyone who is not 'one of you' is what is truly un-American.
America is not personally reserved just for you and Conservatives. Too many of our men and women have died to make sure of that no one party 'owns' America or its people.
10 million less America haters like you
I served in the US Military because i support and love this country. Where did you serve?
The AR-15 is the most owned firearm in America. It is the preferred defense weapon for women. 99.9% of AR-15 owners have never and will never use their weapon in a crime
95% of Americans want better gun regulations, the same amount of people want the AR-15 banned from sales. Those of you who need an extra penis can go to a sex shop and, buy one there.
95% of Americans want better gun regulations, the same amount of people want the AR-15 banned from sales.
I'm sure you have the polls to back up this absurd statement. Right? How about posting them.
The left wing organizers are the ones leading to these upcoming mass demonstrations. They want to poison the minds of the young and make them think that Trump himself pulled the trigger. It seems that several mass shootings occurred on Obama's watch, but hardly a word was raised about his inefficient and lazy approach to being the prez.
The difference between Obama and, Trump can be seen here.
It's not "Lefties" that are attacking Trump or, "making the kids" protest, it is the students themselves, they are tired of the BS from the Right.
It's not "Lefties" that are attacking Trump or, "making the kids" protest, it is the students themselves, they are tired of the BS from the Right.
Wow!!! Emotion filled protests from the half educated. That's what we need more of.
Wow!!! Emotion filled protests from the half educated. That's what we need more of.
It would seem to me, from listening to what these kids have said, that they are more informed than people on the right are. Half educated? I don't think so.
he is being called out for not having the backbone to stand up and do SOMETHING to stop school shootings,
Of course, he needs to do SOMETHING. The fact that you want him to do the WRONG thing is, of course, totally irrelevant. At least the WRONG thing is SOMETHING. If I might make a suggestion; stop using your emotions and start using your brain. Find something to do that actually WORKS. Banning classes of firearms is the wrong thing to do because it removes the rights of honest people to do something that DOESN'T WORK.
Interesting that the Democrats didn't pass any gun control laws during Obama's tenure when they had filibuster proof control of Congress.
Suddenly, it became an idea they could rally behind once they lost the power to do it on their own.
They chose to die on the hill of healthcare reform, which was the more pressing issue at the national level. Frankly what is annoying is this idea that the parties have to be at odds with one another, that there aren't some issues that are pressing and need to be solved no matter which party has a majority. Politics in the US has become a zero sum game, hence why our government is effectively ceasing to function. It was not designed to operate in this fashion.
Well, this was an EO issued by Obama, that Trump decided didn't need to be in effect, I wonder when the nutcase in Fl bought his AR-15,
I also believe that under Rick Scott (R) governor of Florida that it is now easier to buy an AR-15 than it is to buy a .38.
Well, this was an EO issued by Obama, that Trump decided didn't need to be in effect, I wonder when the nutcase in Fl bought his AR-15,
What your biased source fails to report is that this wasn't a law, but rather a policy that the SSA deemed appropriate. IN other words, they decided on their own that anyone they were sending a check to for a disability connected to mental health, or anyone who named a third party, be it family or friend or anyone, to discuss their benefits or receive their funds should not have access to firearms, and restricted their Right with an administrative action. This removed any Due Process, and did not include any means to have someone's right restored. It was a flawed policy, and it violated the Brady Act, because it removed Due Process. The policy was an attempt to skirt the HIPPA laws.
But you go ahead and spin it any way you want.
We gun owners DO want the mentally ill to be prohibited from obtaining firearms. But we demand that it be done in the legal manner with Due Process. And the way to do this is to amend HIPPA to allow this type of process. Restrict the right for 72 hours, hold a hearing before a judge, and determine if temporary removal of the right is warranted. Then allow the individual to petition the court for a hearing when the situation has improved. YOU MUST INCLUDE A HEARING, AND A WAY TO PETITION FOR REDRESS.
We gun owners DO want the mentally ill to be prohibited from obtaining firearms. But we demand that it be done in the legal manner with Due Process. And the way to do this is to amend HIPPA to allow this type of process. Restrict the right for 72 hours, hold a hearing before a judge, and determine if temporary removal of the right is warranted. Then allow the individual to petition the court for a hearing when the situation has improved. YOU MUST INCLUDE A HEARING, AND A WAY TO PETITION FOR REDRESS.
Nicolas Cruz was visited by LEO's 39 times before the shooting, he was visited by the Florida Mental Health agencies as well, he couldn't be Baker acted, what makes you think that the law you propose would have worked in his case. If you will notice, in my post, at least the part you quoted I said that Obama's restriction was an Executive Order, that is what EO means. I never said it was a law of the land and, the story should make it obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that the president cannot change a law without Congress or, make law without Congress.
I wonder when the nutcase in Fl bought his AR-15,
February, 2017 according to USA today and it was a legal purchase and obamas restrictive EO was still in effect .
Then this would be a good reason to bring back the assault weapons ban, as well as enacting new legislation to limit people with mental illness's from being able to purchase guns, instead of getting rid of them, wouldn't it? You and, Trump really didn't think this one out did you?
I never said it was a law of the land and,
No, but your linked source did, and it was your linked source that I was calling out. Anyone with half a brain cell could tell that by my statement:
What your biased source fails to report
Lets see the so called assault weapons ban and obamas EO did nothing so your sokution is to double down and do more of a failed plan.
o, but your linked source did, and it was your linked source that I was calling out.Restrict the right for 72 hours, hold a hearing before a judge, and determine if temporary removal of the right is warranted. Then allow the individual to petition the court for a hearing when the situation has improved. YOU MUST INCLUDE A HEARING, AND A WAY TO PETITION FOR REDRESS.
Having a mental illness myself I can address this with a little knowledge, I've been on my meds for over 20 years, I was diagnosed late in life with PTSD and, Manic Depression, before that there was nothing that would have prevented me from buying a gun in what you are proposing, so, anyone who has never been diagnosed and, shows no signs to family or, friends would be able to go out and, buy a gun and, use it as they saw fit. Now that I have said that part of it, I will address the rest of my thought on your post mentioned above. A person who has a mental illness is not always bouncing off of the walls nuts, like me they have their moments of clarity when they seem totally alright, when I'm on my meds, as I am all the time now, everything is cool, when I'm off my meds is when I start having problems, riding the roller coaster I call it, I'll feel like I have all the energy in the world and, that nothing can stop me one day and, the next I'll not want to go anywhere or, talk to anyone and, yes, I'll be thinking of hurting myself, this is why I stay on my meds. The same thing can be said for the kid in the shooting in Florida, as long as he was on his meds getting the help he needed he was alright but, take him off of his meds and, wham, a totally different guy. See, that is the problem here, the cops go to his place and, ask him if he's thinking of hurting someone, he says no he's not that he was just joking around on Facebook or, something, well, they have no cause to do anything so they have to go away, the next day he goes out and, kills 17 people. You want to change that, then the laws have to be changed to take someone's rights away.
Lets see the so called assault weapons ban and obamas EO did nothing
No, my solution is to take what you claim didn't work, make it better and, make it the law of the land. Currently there are several states that are working on making laws that will work, I can think of four right now, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey and, Rhode Island.
So change them. I'm not saying not to change the law. I'm saying include due process. If you include a name on the Brady background check database because a doctor has perscribed a medication, you must allow for a means to have the name removed in the event you no longer need that medication, or your condition has changed.
But I'm about to adjust my position on this. Because I now remember that the FFL application asks "Have you ever been". The instructions allow that if you are "cured", medical authority determines you are no longer a danger to yourself or others, then your okay.
So my question is: Can mental illness be cured? Not treated, as you point out that depends on someone staying on meds. But can you reach a point where medical authority says you are no longer a danger without the medication?
Having a mental illness myself I can address this with a little knowledge, I've been on my meds for over 20 years, I was diagnosed late in life with PTSD and, Manic Depression, before that there was nothing that would have prevented me from buying a gun in what you are proposin
Do YOU FEEL that you shouldn't have a gun in your possession ?
Do YOU FEEL you have an urge to commit murder ?
Do YOU FEEL that your medical records should be public knowledge ?
But can you reach a point where medical authority says you are no longer a danger without the medication?
No, you can be stabilized but, there aren't really any cures for many mental illness's, the medication helps but, it isn't a cure as you mean it.
Do YOU FEEL that you shouldn't have a gun in your possession ?
Do YOU FEEL you have an urge to commit murder ?
Do YOU FEEL that your medical records should be public knowledge ?
Cute. Now, let me explain it to you so that you will understand it.
I have owned guns in the past and, I can own a gun now, I chose not to because I have no use for one.
Only when dealing with an idiot.
Not public knowledge but, when it comes to LEO's I think they should have access to them.
Well then, change the laws. Allow for due process in the cases where a drug is prescribed, but the individual is not a danger. I'm not against changing the law for these situations. I just want to have due process put in it. If you want, write the law so that it's automatic, but allow the individual to petition the court to restore the right.
Cute. Now, let me explain it to you so that you will understand it.
Not cute at all !
I had Questions requesting an answer from a self proclaimed mentally Ill person.
I'm trying to find out what is in that kind of a mind, which if the Liberal ideas goes through, will effect YOU immensely.
your not concerned about your rights taken away if the Liberal ideas go through ?
your not concerned about your rights taken away if the Liberal ideas go through ?
I have chosen not to own a gun simply because I know that if I should, for some reason, end up off of my meds that I will become a danger to myself. After four attempts at suicide over the past 20 years, I realize that yes, I am a danger to myself at times and, since I have kids and, grandkids that I would like to continue to see and, I don't want to do them harm, (killing myself would do them harm), I've decided not to own any kind of gun and, continue on my meds. If removing guns from the home of someone who is mentally unstable will prevent them from killing even one person requires them being put on some kind of list, then yes, I am for it, no matter how it effects me personally. The safety of kids is more important than your wanting to feel more macho because you own an AR-15.
Allow for due process in the cases where a drug is prescribed, but the individual is not a danger. I'm not against changing the law for these situations.
Listen to what your buddy Trump thinks of the bolded part of your statement.
I had Questions requesting an answer from a self proclaimed mentally Ill person.
Not self proclaimed. I have been diagnosed as suffering from PTSD and, Manic Depression, if you think you know more than my doctors please show proof of that by putting up a PDF of your college transcripts.
I have chosen not to own a gun simply because I know that if I should, for some reason, end up off of my meds that I will become a danger to myself.
Self, Self, Self ?
"(killing myself would do them harm)"
How ?
My kids have been through a few funerals, and not one of them has been effected to the point of "Non-performance" ! It's all PART OF THE OWNDERFUL WORLD OF WHAT WE CALL LIFE !
My kids have been through a few funerals, and not one of them has been effected to the point of "Non-performance" ! It's all PART OF THE OWNDERFUL WORLD OF WHAT WE CALL LIFE !
So, you don't think that putting a gun in your mouth and, blowing off the top of your head would effect them much? Wow. Ever been to a closed casket funeral? I have, my sisters, it was after she blew the top of her head off with a hand gun. I don't want my kids to go through what her kids had to go through. Since that day, the day of her funeral, I haven't had a gun in my possession, except for going to the range with friends who let me use theirs. Yes, I still shoot but, only guns provided to me by my friends, who know my situation and, at my request only provide their guns when they are able to be with me.
Take the guns ,give due process later is already law under the Lautenberg amendment which has been changed a few times since its signing in 1996, it now includes those simply charged and awaiting a court appearance.
meaning anyone that has a protection order against them forfeit the right to posess firearms pending the outcome in court.
So, you don't think that putting a gun in your mouth and, blowing off the top of your head would effect them much?
Are the parents going to force them in the room to look at your splattered remains before the coroner gets there ?
meaning anyone that has a protection order against them forfeit the right to posess firearms pending the outcome in court.
You do know that a protection order has to be issued by a judge don't you? That is called "due process".
Are the parents going to force them in the room to look at your splattered remains before the coroner gets there ?
Since I live alone now and, my daughter comes by to visit with her son, it would be very disturbing to her and, her now 6 year old son, to come into grandpa's and, find me sitting in my recliner with the top of my head splattered against the wall. Now, if you have nothing constructive to add why don't you go fly a fucking kite.
What should be do that would be effective? Please offer some common sense and practical suggestions.
What should be do that would be effective?
Regulate the sale and distribution of bullets.
Mass SHOOTING is a Mass Shooting.....period !
I was saying if you want to ban bullets just don't buy them. The rest of us will buy them.
Didn't mean it to sound as If I was releasing the "Kraken"....on YOU !
Hit the wrong "Button" thingy on who the response was for.....apparently. 
I don't know dowser, it seems to me that he might be dead on with it, Cruz and, the Republicans need to make sure they keep their A+ rating with the NRA and, get those campaign dollars. I mean who cares if kids are getting killed, as long as those campaign dollars continue to flow in, isn't that what really matters? And, if you need a sarc tag for the last part of this comment then ya have something wrong with yer brain. 
Hey Gavin, I was just wishing a friend well. I said it was off-topic, and it was not a political statement. 
Who is online
262 visitors
No, Ted Cruz, this is politicizing the issue. Since what happened in Texas what have you done to try to stop such shootings? That's right, nothing.
The Democrats aren't and, don't want to take away the Second Amendment but, in 1994 we had a law that took away assault style weapons, it was called the Brady Act, it didn't remove the Second Amendment from the Constitution, Americans could still go out and, buy hunting rifles, target pistols and, weapons for home defense. Cruz has tried to politicize this by commenting on "Fox and, Friends", he and, Republicans like him are the problem.
That 1994 law didn't outlaw those weapons, it only banned the sale of new. And it expired after 10 years because it was shown to not really make any difference. Columbine happened during that ban. And no "common sense" law proposed since Sandy Hook has shown that it would make any difference. So really, short of banning the ownership of all guns (which I don't support but it's the only action I can see that might make a difference) what would you propose be done? Just banning the sale of new "assault weapons" doesn't cover the millions that are already owned. To say nothing of the weapon that does the most murders, the handgun.
I kind of understand the need to do something, but it just seems to me that the issue here has so many facets that any change would be a multi-generational process. Or you can try to ban guns, there is a process to try to do that. Don't think that could be accomplished, but hey... maybe tilting and windmills is your thing..
I'm just glad that white supremacists and Trump supporters like the shooter are still free to buy AR-15s.
Very good comment Snuffy. Notice all the attention it received, although I think the article did trigger a couple of cases with that Liberalism affliction. LOL
Actually Snuffy, what the outlawing and confiscation of all privately held firearms (assuming it could actually be accomplished) would do is cause large, strong, young males to rule the streets using clubs and knives, since the rest of us would no longer be able to use firearms to equalize those factors (they're called "equalizers" for a reason). The police would, of course, accomplish nothing because they can't be everywhere.
I hope that they do try that. It should keep them out of our hair for the ten or fifteen years until they give it up.
Say what?
Here's a good NRA commercial I think you'll like. It's kind of like right out of the Democrat's mouth. I am assuming you are a Democrat and voted for Hillary.
Interesting but, you and, the NRA have it wrong, it isn't "gun confiscation", it is a gun buy back program, that is totally voluntary and, because of that program they have taken many "assault style" weapons back, legally in the buy back program, many of them from the "Outback" area.
They should try that "Voluntary" thingy on "ILLEGAL" and "BANNED" Drugs. it just might work ?
I've seen these voluntary "Gun backs". The weapons are so fucking old and/or abused....even I wouldn't want to pull the trigger out of fear it might blow in my hand. It's a free 50 bucks though.
The thing is, it's working there. What you are saying is that they, the Australians, can do something that we Americans can't possibly do, kind of sad don't ya think?
They're getting "JUNK".
Ever seen "Junk" used....on the news ?
And, yet, here you are complaining about Clinton wanting to do the same thing here, banning the sale assault weapons ONLY and, creating a buy back program for those who wish to turn them in, VOLUNTARILY.
Where, Where, Where ?
How does it feel that your Shitbag is talking about using an EO to ban a piece of AR add-on equipment? (Of course, it probably doesn't really bother you because even you realize by now how full of bullshit that useless tub-o-lard is).
As one politician put it today, "are we seeing the Tuesday Trump or, the Thursday Trump during this debate?" I guess we will find out soon.
Let's see, that picture shows soldiers who have been trained to fight, now, compare that to some 18 year old who just goes to the store and, buys an AR-15 "cuz it's cool" and, he wants to kill like he saw on a video game or, he's mad at some of his teachers.
Not soldiers but rather Marines or at minimum Marine recruits or candidates.
For those serving, old enough to die for your country, old enough to own a black rifle.
Period.
That's an emotional argument.
Charles Whitman was a Marine's Marine. In 1966 he killed 16 people at the University of Austin.
The incident which was later heard recounted to a band of recruits at PI by their DI, as "outstanding marksmanship"...
the military should not be treated any different than any one else.
I disagree completely. And to save you the response i couldn’t give two shakes what you think of that.
Of the millions of Marines who have served since, you have to go back over 50 years to find an example to support your narrative. Just be thankful of the fact that more Marines don’t snap like civilians. Marines don’t miss.
Every Marine a rifleman .....
My "narrative" is that Marines and the military members are a slice of our culture and suffer the same shortcomings as everyone else.
Timothy McVeigh was an Army vet who didn't use a gun.
The military should not be an excepted class based on our training or experience.
If anything we are more prone to undiagnosed PTSD than any other group and should be exceptionally scrutinized,
certainly not given a free pass due to patriotic emotions.
Yeah I understand your narrative quite well. Old enough to die for you but not to own a weapon around you.
once again, we disagree completely and absolutely on this issue.
You have to keep gong back decades for examples to support your BS narrative. It’s clear why that is but I don’t expect you to understand or admit why. You just can’t help yourself. As you are hopelessly partisan and biased on the topic at hand.
Sad .....
Yes, serving, as in getting the proper training from someone who is qualified to do that training and, they won't be turned loose with it, in combat until they are FULLY trained, something that none of the kids that I'm speaking of have had, they have gone to the store bought a military grade rifle because it looks cool, like the guns in their video games, then they decide to go shoot up a school because it looks cool in the game to do it. These weapons of war should not be out in the civilian world because, THEY ARE WEAPONS OF WAR.
You can't say this is partisan.
Fuck you Ted Cruz - you piece of shit.
Comment has no value and should be removed.
Since I am the seeder of this article I'll decide what is to be removed, from my seed. You have no say in it.
Who cares about Ted Cruz, I want to know what Ted Nugent is up to! If you visit you can see that he is advertising his own brand of AR-15, and it's called a "spearchucker". He has apparently named it after his prey. Conservatives are so classy.
Comment removed no value off topic.
Neither Teddy or the NRA have the guts to admit the truth. Every country in the world has people with mental health problems, and every country in the world has societal problems, many worse than ours. Yet, America is the only nation with a school shooting a week. Could part of the reason be 300,000,000 guns floating around the country?
If our country was awash with 300,000,000 dildos and a conservative Republican found their son or daughter with one you know for sure they'd be talking about dildo bans.
There aren't ?
I here "Doc Johnson" just outside of LA has been cranking out 5 million "toys" a year since the 90's.
I'd say little ted has some serious mental issues of its' own. Talk about someone who shouldn't have a gun!
What ever gave you that idea? Don't ya know the NRA and, the Republicans say that only "Good guys with guns" can stop the "Bad guys with guns"? /s/
That's not necessarily true. Ever wonder why Baltimore schools don't have mass shootings? Although I've heard they've received threats since the Florida tragedy. Don't worry though, the students will take care of the situation there.
Perhaps. Are ya gonna go confiscate all of them? Do you have any realistic solutions"
Tell ya what Greg, since you can't seem to post anything besides insults and, RW BS, why don't you go play somewhere else today?
Now that's not fair. He was referring to the comment about 300,000 guns in this country. Then Hal said he wanted to see what Ted Nugent was doing somewhere along that time. You didn't seem to have a problem with either of those. Do common sense comments bother you because Greg's comment is a legitimate question? If one of your cohorts is concerned with the 300,000 guns in this country, what do you suggest doing? Wasn't it you who said ' The Democrats aren't and, don't want to take away the Second Amendment '? Then wasn't it me who provided a video right out of the b****** mouth that completely debunked that comment?
Worried about Ted Cruz? We're worried about 'Protecting the Children'. Obama had control of both houses in Congress for two years. What laws did they pass when they had the ability to do so? That's right......none. And Obama had absolute control of both Houses and the President with enough Democrat votes to do anything they wanted to do and the Republicans couldn't stop them for 9 months. What laws did they pass to control mass shootings? That's right.....none.