Vet charged in sniper killing: Swingers Discussion 2164671061

155
Vet charged in sniper killing: Swingers Discussion 2164671061

Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

TOPIC: Vet charged in sniper killing

GoTo Page: Less ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Start

61 to 70 of 97

End

User Details are only visible to members.	Because defending yourself/owning a gun is your Constitutional Right. Driving is a privilege.
Colts Neck NJ			Username hidden (12717 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Who are "they", and what do they have to gain?
Flat Rock NC			Username hidden (2991 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	"All I really want to see are stricter requirements to own a gun." Too bad! All I want is the constitution followed to the letter. Gun restrictions/requirements do not work, they are a waste of money and a infringement of the BOR. People die, sometimes people are killed, it is not nice but society is not perfect and never will be. But it is a fact that guns save far more lives than they take. There is a bright spot for you, England/Canada/Mexico has stricter requirements to own a gun.
Sanford NC			Username hidden (18897 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	BS your right about that. Give them an inch they will take a mile
Berryville VA			Username hidden (1563 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	back in the sixtys they just wanted to ban saturday night speaicls.now look what we have.you think they are going to stop now.no they will want more.after that.they will want more.they have nothing to lose,and everything to gain.more rules and more laws,then bing go,england gun laws...........BS
Kingston TN			Username hidden (1990 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	"You want stricter limitations on gun ownership. Ok. What makes you think that if that goes through, down the road, say in 3 years, some asshole enters a kindergarten with 10 loaded guns under his coat, and takes out 30 people, that the government wouldn't move forward with further restrictions, and an eventual ban?" What makes you think that without stricter purchasing/ownership requirements that the gov't still wouldn't do the same thing after your given scenario? There are no guarantees with anything. In order to drive, you need to demonstrate proficiency and knowledge. In order get a job, you need to demonstrate proficiency and knowledge. Why do we have no such requirement to own a gun? Buy a gun. Buy 100 of them for all I care. I own 2 myself. Just prove that you know what you're doing with them. But you did remind me of a point that I didn't originally make, which is that testing requirements would be up to each individual state to determine. In no way do I want federal gun laws. T
Danville PA			Username hidden (2133 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	You want stricter limitations on gun ownership. Ok. What makes you think that if that goes through, down the road, say in 3 years, some asshole enters a kindergarten with 10 loaded guns under his coat, and takes out 30 people, that the government wouldn't move forward with further restrictions, and an eventual ban?
Colts Neck NJ			Username hidden (12717 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	"I hold the shooter responsible for his actions but it does not feel "good" to do so. Nothing is right or good in this situation." I'm curious as to who thought it was a good idea to take a combat vet suffering from PTSD to the range in the first place. Granted, not all cases of PTSD are considered severe (roughly 20% actually) and some people just cope with it better than others, but this just seems like it was a bad idea from the get go. Of course, I have no idea how severe this guy's PTSD was though. It could have been relatively minor with no red flags. T
Danville PA			Username hidden (2133 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	"... there should be some sort of mental health screening for people wanting to possess guns. Or if you're already a (registered) gun owner and you develop mental health issues, your guns are taken away. " cplo, would you go so far as to say people who are stockpiling weapons in order to fight government agents who might want to take their guns or test their mental health ... have proven that they are mentally unfit to own guns? No. I think they're a bit paranoid, but probably not anything that would be considered mentally disturbed. I'm mostly talking about people with more severe social disorders, extreme depression or PTSD, etc, etc. All I really want to see are stricter requirements to own a gun. No limitations on the number or types of weapons you can own or the amount of bullets you can buy. I think that owning a gun comes with an inherently strong responsibility and that before purchasing a gun, a person needs to demonstrate knowledge of gun law, gun safety, proficiency and prove that you aren't bat shit crazy. Basically, I just want to make sure that the people who are buying guns are competent enough to own them. I think that the process should be similar to getting your driver's license and owning a vehicle. Take a test demonstrating your knowledge of the laws and rules. Take a test demonstrating that you can operate a gun safely. Renew your license every X amount of years (3-5 years) by re-taking the tests. I have no interest in disarming American citizens. I do have a very strong interest in making sure that the people who are arming themselves are properly trained in how to use them and are knowledgable as to how their local laws apply to gun use. T
Danville PA			Username hidden (2133 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Hmm, just did a forums Search on "conservatard" and found one reference from 6 years ago; and 2 this morning.
Flat Rock NC			Username hidden (2991 post)

GoTo Page: Less ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Start

61 to 70 of 97

End

TOPIC: Vet charged in sniper killing