Wat's Guns-N-Stuff Thread

[Dribble]

It's called a "database" and it includes all information on those who are committed to mental institutions.

Either the data wasn't entered into the database (like in the past) or law enforcement dropped the ball and didn't get a warrant to seize the guns (like in the past).

What's become obvious here is that you're squirming like a worm on a fishhook trying to avoid the real problem - your control policies don't work, haven't worked, and will never work.

Which we...Democrats...have tried to get passed over a hundred times. Why do Republicans refuse to implement this?

 

[Dribble]

Where did anti-gun people say they don't want linked databases?

Or did you just screw up your ultra-lame retort?

He is floundering.

 

[HisArpy]

Which we...Democrats...have tried to get passed over a hundred times. Why do Republicans refuse to implement this?

It already exists you moron.

 

[Dribble]

It already exists you moron.

I suggest you do some research Mr ""Lawyer"

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics/mental-health-gun-possession-explainer/index.html

Please notice...there are only 2 ways a mentally ill person can be prohibited from purchasing a firearm at the Federal level

1) They must have been involuntarily committed

2) The Courts must have declared them prohibited.

NO OTHER INFORMATION IS INCLUDED IN THE DATABASES PRESENTLY AVAILABLE

 

[Dribble]

I fully support linked databases.

We should also include domestic violence. But we don't

 

[Bray123]

And you know this... how exactly?

OK, I was making assumptions. How many people have you shot?

 

[Wat_Tyler]

21.i and 21.j on the 4473 specifically mention domestic violence and stalking and so on, to include misdemeanors.

 

[HisArpy]

I suggest you do some research Mr ""Lawyer"

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics/mental-health-gun-possession-explainer/index.html

Please notice...there are only 2 ways a mentally ill person can be prohibited from purchasing a firearm at the Federal level

1) They must have been involuntarily committed

2) The Courts must have declared them prohibited.

NO OTHER INFORMATION IS INCLUDED IN THE DATABASES PRESENTLY AVAILABLE

Great, you're relying on CNN's biased reporting which often omits actual facts for lies as the place you get your "facts."



According to the index for NICS, a prohibited person would be defined under 18 U.S.C. §922 (g) (4) as a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution.

Title 18 G(4) makes no mention of whether the commitment needs to be involuntary or voluntary.

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person--


(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

(2) who is a fugitive from justice;

(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;

https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-922/

 

[HisArpy]

OK, I was making assumptions. How many people have you shot?

1. Yes, you are an asshole for even asking.

2. You do not have the necessary clearances to be given this information anyway.

 

[Dribble]

Great, you're relying on CNN's biased reporting which often omits actual facts for lies as the place you get your "facts."



According to the index for NICS, a prohibited person would be defined under 18 U.S.C. §922 (g) (4) as a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution.

Title 18 G(4) makes no mention of whether the commitment needs to be involuntary or voluntary.

Tell me Mr "Lawyer" ...what does " adjudicated as a mental defective" OF "committed" mean? You wanna know why it makes no mention of involuntary or voluntary? I will give you a chance before I present the Ruling. Any good "lawyer"should be able to find this. Hell...i am not a lawyer and I did

 

[HisArpy]

Tell me Mr "Lawyer" ...what does " adjudicated as a mental defective" OF "committed" mean? You wanna know why it makes no mention of involuntary or voluntary? I will give you a chance before I present the Ruling. Any good "lawyer"should be able to find this. Hell...i am not a lawyer and I did

You don't have to be declared mentally ill to be committed to a mental institution. You attempting to infer that it's a required finding is false.

 

[ll74]

You don't have to be declared mentally ill to be committed to a mental institution. You attempting to infer that it's a required finding is false.

So being committed doesn't mean you should have your guns taken away

 

[coati]

Geez, one of the most vocal of threads has suddenly gone radio silent.
Yep, like I said, you’re all dipshits.
Peace, I hope you all have a better day than families in Maine. I’m out.

The gun-obsessed assholes on this thread have been raving about the need to disarm federal agents, posting their reviews of fully automatic weapons, bragging about their arsenals, and referring to unarmed citizens as being ignorant and pussies.

And then a certified firearm instructor kills 18, and all they want to do is quibble about police not doing their job.

This thread provides some profiles very similar to the shooter in Maine. I hope some federal agent reads through it, and I hope this nation will come to its senses and ban certain types of weapons.

 

[Chobham]

Here we go again. SOS, DD.

Let's start with something we should all be able to agree on, the mentally ill shouldn't have weapons.

And perhaps we can agree that it's not the tool, it's the person.

Bath Disaster.
VA Tech.

Different tools, big body counts. I can add to the list but those two examples should suffice. The homicidal mentally ill will find a way.

Now, how do you go about making that happen? How do you go about depriving an individual of a Constitutional right without stepping all over the Constitution in so doing?

Do you have a clue as to how many other laws would have to be changed/amended to make that happen? And I suspect more than a few of those laws that would have to change are laws that many of you actually support in their current form.

 

[ll74]

Here we go again. SOS, DD.

Let's start with something we should all be able to agree on, the mentally ill shouldn't have weapons.

And perhaps we can agree that it's not the tool, it's the person.

Bath Disaster.
VA Tech.

Different tools, big body counts. I can add to the list but those two examples should suffice. The homicidal mentally ill will find a way.

Now, how do you go about making that happen? How do you go about depriving an individual of a Constitutional right without stepping all over the Constitution in so doing?

Do you have a clue as to how many other laws would have to be changed/amended to make that happen? And I suspect more than a few of those laws that would have to change are laws that many of you actually support in their current form.

It's the person who has access to tools and the tools they have access to.

A knife in this dipshit's hand would've resulted in an incredibly different result.

I don't understand why you gun nuts don't fucking admit that.

Guns provide the easiest way to commit massive casualties. Period. I get it's hard to keep them out of people's hands, but this guy was literally in a mental hospital.

Step one: take away weapons of mass destruction from people that demonstrate an inability to make same decisions.

Why is that so fucking hard?

When you get committed, the very first thing that should happen is your guns are taken away from you and you are banned from buying more until a doctor clears you

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

New info on suspected shooter Robert Card: "The Army did not train SFC Card as a firearms instructor, nor did he serve in that capacity for the Army. Due to the Privacy Act and the ongoing investigation, we cannot provide further details," an Army spox said.
https://x.com/liz_friden/status/1717649148072136853?s=46&t=D4wPadUSm31flBzHVSwUxA

 

[Chobham]

Nope, explosives are the easiest way to cause mass casualties.

 

[ll74]

Nope, explosives are the easiest way to cause mass casualties.

Ease of damage, yes

Ease of use and damage, no.

The average person can get a gun and kill a shitton of people. Give those same people explosives.....no.

Stupid response and easily proved to be bullshit.

 

[Chobham]

Ease of damage, yes

Ease of use and damage, no.

The average person can get a gun and kill a shitton of people. Give those same people explosives.....no.

Stupid response and easily proved to be bullshit.

LMAO. You're retorts are ipso facto admission that I am right. You had to throw in a qualifier so as to not make your original post poorly thought out. Words have meanings, use them wisely.

And you go off on tangents throwing out simplistic, poorly thought out, palliatives as a solution to a problem that is incredibly more complex than you seem to realize.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Stupid response and easily proved to be bullshit.

That captures most of Chubby's responses where the topic of guns are involved.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

LMAO. You're retorts are ipso facto admission that I am right. You had to throw in a qualifier so as to not make your original post poorly thought out. Words have meanings, use them wisely.

And you go off on tangents throwing out simplistic, poorly thought out, palliatives as a solution to a problem that is incredibly more complex than you seem to realize.

"you are retorts".......fuck off with your stupid lack of editing....You claim to be smarter than that....prove it!

 

[ll74]

LMAO. You're retorts are ipso facto admission that I am right. You had to throw in a qualifier so as to not make your original post poorly thought out. Words have meanings, use them wisely.

Yes, I did make the assumption that you understood that an average person cannot acquire explosives as easily as a knife or a gun or other weapon.

But I am sincere in my argument and I know you're not.

And you go off on tangents throwing out simplistic, poorly thought out, palliatives as a solution to a problem that is incredibly more complex than you seem to realize.

The person who was committed could've easily had his guns taken away.

That's easy.

 

[coati]

New info on suspected shooter Robert Card: "The Army did not train SFC Card as a firearms instructor, nor did he serve in that capacity for the Army. Due to the Privacy Act and the ongoing investigation, we cannot provide further details," an Army spox said.
https://x.com/liz_friden/status/1717649148072136853?s=46&t=D4wPadUSm31flBzHVSwUxA

And the hair-splitting and quibbling from gun-nuts goes on and on and on...

Get rid of the do-nothing Deplorables in Congress and then take their fuckin' military guns away. It may take time, but it has to be done.

 

[coati]

M249 SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon), fires the standard 5.56x45mm NATO rifle round. It can be fed with a standard M16 magazine, a linked belt, or from a belt in the 200 round assault box.

I have fired this when I worked as a firefighter for the military. It is accurate and has very little felt recoil. If I win the lottery and can get an FFL Class 3 this would be on my list of toys to add to my collection.


View attachment 2282027

Check out this Tennessee dude's post ^^^. This is his idea of a cool toy. Is he the next Robert Card?

 

[coati]

I thought I’d make a list of the fully automatic weapons I’ve fired along with some comments. They’re in no particular order.

M1917 Browning heavy (30 cal) If you want to get a machine gun crew killed, this is the one to give them.

M1919 Browning (30 cal) Better, you can pick it up and run before the mortars zero in.

M2 (50 cal.) There’s a reason this one is still around.

M14 POS on full auto.

M14E2 Marginally better POS.

M14E2 w/muzzle break This one’s a keeper. Accurate and manageable.

MG42 (Hitler’s Buzz Saw) Worthy of respect.

G36 (the ‘new’ buzz saw) Better than the M16 or M4

MP9 Very good for very close CQB (room clearing)

M3 Just FUN

1928 Thompson More funner (at least it has sights)

M249 Scary when it’s running well

M16 Meh

M4 Has the virtue of the 3 rnd. Burst

AK’s Has the virtue of you can throw it in the mud, march an army over it, pick it up and it’ll still fire.

^^^Check out this ISIS-style on-line seminar from the poster "Chobham". Is he the next lone wolf?