Armed Man Arrested on School Grounds claims to be Sovereign Citizen

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I thought the same

surely no one finds moon bat crazy liberal offensive ??? It's not nasty and demeaning like RWNJ or gun nut.

[Darnell 8,478]

moon bats abound. It's on the non-moon bat crowd to find them and eradicate them.

The breeding patterns, alas, ensure a constant supply.

Drats !

and yes, I attribute it all to the moral decay in the U.S.A., starting from about 1964 onward.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Darnell

[GandD 5,966]

surely no one finds moon bat crazy liberal offensive ??? It's not nasty and demeaning like RWNJ or gun nut.

Its the same as calling someone a moron. Your point was that liberals think the way they do as a result of being crazy as opposed to a different philosophical view point. Either way, not constructive. No, my wittle feelings were not hurt.

[james&olya 1,121]

surely no one finds moon bat crazy liberal offensive ??? It's not nasty and demeaning like RWNJ or gun nut.

Of course it is a bit offensive! What is wrong with exchanging a little good-natured volley of insults when the subject is politics? Some of you on here seem to want to neuter all discourse. Party-poopers!

[GandD 5,966]

moon bats abound. It's on the non-moon bat crowd to find them and eradicate them.

The breeding patterns, alas, ensure a constant supply.

Drats !

and yes, I attribute it all to the moral decay in the U.S.A., starting from about 1964 onward.

I too enjoy the use of "Drats" from time to time......

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Sorry but to follow the logic that the NRA wants crazies to have firearms would be like this:

I feel that current sex offender laws are overreaching causing people in some communities to live in tent cities due to proximity rules. I would have those laws relaxed somewhat. Using the logic of the thread you and Big Dog would accuse me of encouraging and supporting sex offenders and their offenses which is absolutely silly.

Not at all. You're comparing apples and oranges here. Willfully so, of course. The question is who should and who should not be considered a sex offender. A child molester has no business near a school or a day care or a playground. If you want to sit there and relax that restriction, I would accuse you of supporting child molesters. If you want to relax the rules to where that 18 year old student that's discussed in the other thread would not have to spend a life under the same restrictions as a child molester, I'd say that you're making sense.

The NRA, however, resists universal background checks period. Those are background checks that any and all law abiding citizens could easily pass. No restriction would be placed on them. None. The only persons benefiting from that resistance are those not eligible to purchase a firearm - the criminals and the mentally incapacitated. The position the NRA is taking on that issue benefits them and nobody else. It puts everyone else in danger. It increases crime which is what the NRA really wants so that more people want to buy guns. That's their ultimate objective - increase gun sales. Safety, security and the life of our children be damned!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If you place boundaries around lots of sensitive locations you force a good deal of offenders out of their homes and in to tent cities in rural areas. As a result, they are more likely to disappear. I would turn this around and say your supporting child molesters and their actions by forcing them off the grid, but frankly its beneath me. I'd rather be caught dead before apply BS Gary-esque logic to a topic which you are very much guilty of. Perhaps I'll start calling you Gary-Lite. Remember when he used to go around saying Dems hate women because they wouldn't support Hillary? Your not far off mate. I'd rather not muck about in that mud, but I suppose Dogs love mud so there you go.

Not even close. And you need to control that urge when claiming to control the urge. Can't have it both ways.

Look, it's really simple: law abiding citizens in good mental health can pass a background check. Those are the only people that should be able to purchase firearms. Universal background checks would get us a lot closer to that goal. Yet the NRA fights to keep plenty of alternate avenues open for those that cannot pass these background checks. That's a fact and that is direct support for those unfit to acquire and posses firearms to have ample opportunity to acquire and posses them. Thus, the NRA IS supporting criminals and the mentally incapacitated. I know you don't like to hear it but it's the truth all the same.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If you place boundaries around lots of sensitive locations you force a good deal of offenders out of their homes and in to tent cities in rural areas. As a result, they are more likely to disappear.

I don't know where you live but all the places I've lived, you can find thousands of homes that meet the distance requirements. And I have not yet lived in rural America. Haven't seen any tent cities in rural areas for sex offenders either. But whatever.

[Karee 4,189]

I thought I read somewhere on one of these threads that there's been 1000s of people that failed the background checks when trying to purchase a firearm. Apparently trying to acquire a firearm while being a convicted felon or whatever is against the law, yet barely any of these people were/are prosecuted. Seems they need to fix that minor problem before they start requiring more background checks.

The whole thing is pretty silly anyway with 300+ million guns in this country. If a criminal wants a gun, he's gonna get one. Seems all this background check stuff is there to make politicians feel good about themselves, and to tell people they're doing something. Reality is it's not going to change a thing.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Its not a fact......you've been asked for evidence of this in the thread and have yet to produce it. Regarding one's " urge" I was again pointing out the stupidity of making such far reaching claims that somehow not supporting a law you suddenly support criminals. Thats actually quite dangerous.

If it wasn't enough that people use children in their arguments for emotional response, we are now following a Bush like philosophy of if your not for us than you are against us and we're going to take you down?

Sorry, but thats illogical.

Colorado passed universal background checks. That's to be applauded. The NRA, however, is now funding recall efforts against the Senate President for his leadership on the issue. That's a fact. Just as it is a fact that the NRA opposes and fights universal background checks. You know that they do but pretend that they don't. Useless to have debate if you are sitting there ignoring the obvious. Sory but that's not productive.

Without universal background checks, criminals and the mentally incapacitated will always have easy and ready access to firearms. Standing in the way of universal background checks is thus the same as supporting access to firearms for criminals and the mentally incapacitated. That's what the NRA does. Plain and simple. No amount o smoke and mirrors will ever hide that simple truth.

[james&olya 1,121]

I thought I read somewhere on one of these threads that there's been 1000s of people that failed the background checks when trying to purchase a firearm. Apparently trying to acquire a firearm while being a convicted felon or whatever is against the law, yet barely any of these people were/are prosecuted. Seems they need to fix that minor problem before they start requiring more background checks.

The whole thing is pretty silly anyway with 300+ million guns in this country. If a criminal wants a gun, he's gonna get one. Seems all this background check stuff is there to make politicians feel good about themselves, and to tell people they're doing something. Reality is it's not going to change a thing.

You are wrong. Many criminals are 'casual' criminals. They don't necessarily intend to go out and make a life of crime but merely respond in the moment as opportunities present. I agree that hardened, determined criminals will get guns. I would not make it easy for them though. But the more common 'criminals of convenience' may indeed be discouraged by some of these hurdles. If they had more motivation they might not need to be criminal to get by, after all.

As to your first point, the main objective is to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. It is not just to fill prisons and make the owners of the private prisons wealthy. So the law is helping, in spite of the huge loopholes you insist upon. If you really believe it will not make any difference why are you so opposed? Do you want to retain the right to profit by arming the criminals and mentally unstable?

[Karee 4,189]

You are wrong.

Prove it! I've already done my research on this in about 10 other threads! Just because you say it's so, doesn't make it so! Let's see what you got!

[james&olya 1,121]

Prove it! I've already done my research on this in about 10 other threads! Just because you say it's so, doesn't make it so! Let's see what you got!

Not worth my time. But I am right.

[Karee 4,189]

Not worth my time. But I am right.

That's what I thought. Good night!

[GandD 5,966]

Prove it! I've already done my research on this in about 10 other threads! Just because you say it's so, doesn't make it so! Let's see what you got!

Atta boy