Yet it hasn't been fully implemented.So dumb that the State of Massachusetts enacted that legislation years ago.
Mandatory sentencing.
Commit a felony with a firearm and off to jail you go.
What’s “dumb” about that ?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yet it hasn't been fully implemented.So dumb that the State of Massachusetts enacted that legislation years ago.
Mandatory sentencing.
Commit a felony with a firearm and off to jail you go.
What’s “dumb” about that ?
I already explained that I don't have the data to solve these macro-problems, not that some basic issues can't be identified. You're trumpeting the main concern as mental health, and can't even define it or suggest a remedy.
Yet it hasn't been fully implemented.
You're just talking in cliches. If you were giving a lecture the only ones who wouldn't walk out would be those who felk asleep.Who says that I can’t even suggest a remedy ?
You ?
I clearly indicated that HIPPA, the privacy laws and our legal system have to be amended to specifically deal with mental illness.
You don’t need data to solve the issue, you need common sense.
Example, you have a 22 year old son that you as a parent are concerned about in terms of his suffering from mental illness.
What can you do about it ? Today, what can you do about it ?
Answer, almost nothing.
So let’s start with familial issues.
What should you be able to do as a concerned mother, father, sister, brother, daughter or son ?
I’ll let you go first then i’ll offer my suggestions, the ones you said I didn’t possess.
One has to be sentenced for 2-1/2 years with a parole allowed after 18 months.Where have you been.
It was implemented decades ago in 1975
One has to be sentenced for 2-1/2 years with a parole allowed after 18 months.
You're just talking in cliches. If you were giving a lecture the only ones who wouldn't walk out would be those who felk asleep.
We were talking about the 5 year no parole suggestion of TDIrish. I said it was a dumb idea and you said "what's dumb about it." Try to keep up.What part of “Mandatory Sentencing” do I have to explain to you ?
How can you be so obtuse as to not understand the concept:
commit a felony with a firearm and you go to jail.
What difference does 2 years, 2.5 years, 3 years or 5 years make ?
You're a fool to expect a detailed plan in a post, and doubly so to think you made one with your "solutions."You have no substance !
I ask you to craft the regulations that you demanded and you can’t!
I ask you to offer suggestions to alleviate the mental illness problem and you have none.
You’re just a political hack with nothing constructive to add
Further proof that you didn't grasp comedy while watching it at the Catskills. The ultimate silence would be you doing schtick before a packed house. You should have added more emojis for greater illusory support.)Silent Banjo, have you considered changing your moniker to “silent brain”
You're a fool to expect a detailed plan in a post, and doubly so to think you made one with your "solutions."
And you think you've offered a treasure trove of solutions? LMAO (rimshot!!!) Good one, Shecky.OK, so give us your macro plan and we’ll drill down to the details at another time.
You’re a phony, you criticize but never offer constructive solutions.
You’re a political hack and an empty suit.
And you think you've offered a treasure trove of solutions? LMAO (rimshot!!!) Good one, Shecky.
Here is the thing. I am all for the right to bear arms and for people to have pistols and hunting rifles. What I am not for is the normal person to be able to purchase an AR 15 assault rifle. A military grade weapon. Or, a AK 47 assault rifle. Another military grade weapon. Or any other high powered weapon really for that matter. Someone needs to really explain to me why anyone needs these things except people in law enforcement.
And, I completely understand the other side of the argument and also agree with it. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. And, people who are doing the mass murders are sick and insane. No doubt.
Here's the thing, for me anyways. I completely agree and understand that the people doing these acts are gonna get these types of weapons if they are legal or illegal. People saying otherwise are not being truthful. What I think banning these weapons would do is, make these sick ****s jobs a bit harder for them. As is, we are handing them the keys to the candy store. Maybe if we make it harder, it could prevent one or two of these things from happening. I really don't know the answer.
You've offered nothing and you can't begin to provide a helpful definition of mental health that would profile a likely shooter. Friends of the Dayton guy said he was charming and easy going, as he seemed well past his HS issues. You're full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.Still no constructive suggestions or solutions from you.
No surprise there.
You have no substance, you’re an empty voice.
But I do have a little experience in dealing with mental illness and take the subject very seriously.
You have no suggestions or possible solutions, just negative comments about Trump and Republicans.
You’re a political hack
Why?If someone needs to explain to you the need then you don't understand why our forefathers made that amendment the second one.
The supreme court has ruled on this.
AR 15 are no more of a military grade weapon then a shot gun are a 45.
I am very familar with military style weapons spending 25 years in the USMC.
Who is the non normal person that is allowed to have these military type weapons?
If you are going to say the military or some other government agencies then you really don't know why our forefathers made that amendment the second one.
You've offered nothing and you can't begin to provide a helpful definition of mental health that would profile a likely shooter. Friends of the Dayton guy said he was charming and easy going, as he seemed well past his HS issues. You're full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
If you're going to say nothing, why do so in such a long and meandering post?Are you that out of touch with reality.
All of the signs/signals were there, just like in Parkland.
And, the Dayton shooter was anti-Trump, a socialist and supporter of Bernie, Warren and Antifa
I asked you, who has been critical of this administration, to suggest some Constructive ideas and you failed to come up with a single suggestion, proving that you’re intellectually bankrupt.
I have a number of suggestions, including allowing direct relatives to have a path to a combination of the authorities and medical professionals, such that bona fide observations can be made that would confiscate any weaponry from the individual under scrutiny.
And, that the relative in question could be observed, examined and tested to ascertain their mental stability and that follow up monitoring would be put in place.
Who would be better than loving family members to try to help a troubled soul ?
You just don’t have the capacity to understand the issue and that’s just one of the reasons why you couldn’t offer any constructive solutions.
Then turn your guns inIf you're going to say nothing, why do so in such a long and meandering post?
Only a fraction of the shooters have exhibited any sign of mental illness. Ostensibly, Steve Paddock, the Las Vegas shooter, was a normal guy with a girlfriend and a lot of money. The nightclub shooter in Orlando also showed no outward signs of mental illness. So what if someone has certain political or organizational leanings? That isn't probable cause, especially if he functions OK in society, as his friends would attest.
All you've suggested is wholesale meddling, based on quirky suspicion, of well established privacy and confidentiality laws. You're a loser and continue to wilfully ignore the root cause of mass murders...guns.
Lmao the Atlantic?
Lmao the Atlantic?
You couldn't find anythimg on Vox?
I'm sure you wouldn't trust any source other than an article from Guns & Ammo.Lmao the Atlantic?
You couldn't find anythimg on Vox?
It quotes Scalia from the Heller decision, which is more limited than what I think a lot of people think.
SpeculationI'm sure you wouldn't trust any source other than an article from Guns & Ammo.
The author of the piece is a well respected and widely published constitutional scholar.
I trust Guns and Ammo more than i do the AtlanticI'm sure you wouldn't trust any source other than an article from Guns & Ammo.
The author of the piece is a well respected and widely published constitutional scholar.
And yet AR 15s have been around since when.It quotes Scalia from the Heller decision, which is more limited than what I think a lot of people think.
And yet AR 15s have been around since when.
I like the colt .308 more
Has nothing to do with how long they've been around.
It quotes Scalia from the Heller decision, which is more limited than what I think a lot of people think.
Or not:
The supreme court twice ruled in the past 11 years that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual pre-political liberty. That is the highest category of liberty recognized in the law. It is akin to the freedoms of thought, speech and personality.
That means that the court has recognized that the framers of the Constitution did not bestow this right upon us. Rather, they recognized its preexistence as an extension of our natural human right to self-defense and they forbade government – state and federal – from infringing upon it.
Shall not be infringed upon! What does that mean to you?You may need to read the Heller decision again.
Shall not be infringed upon! What does that mean to you?
The right to bear arms That means the court has recognized it to be a natural right to self defense.
Neither state or federal can infringe about that right as expressed in the constitution.
It not rocket science here. It's plain speech.
May it's you how might want to read it again
I get it.It's been quoted to you already. You seem to regard it as a blanket holding. It's not. Scalia was clear on that from the language that has already been provided to you. If you don't want to read the decision, then don't.
I get it.
Big government cats just can't stand the second amendment.
I get you interrupt the leftist way possible......carry on
Again, copying what was above. I didn't realize that Scalia was a "big government cat".
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose....
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
And since 2007 it was been revised and since 2007 manufacturers are sti making these weopons and law abiding citizens are purchasing these weapons not for hunting but to keep the government in check as it was designed to do.
No one is saying to give felons or mentally ill people guns.
For you to interpret that law abiding citizens are to be subjected to an infringement is quite an over reach
Now these red flag laws which eliminates due process will mever be allowed to ve implimented