One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
California Hotel cook had enormous stash of firearmas planned mass shooting in Marr**tt Hotel
Page 1 of 2 next>
Aug 22, 2019 16:16:15   #
proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA
 
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7381673/Marr**tt-worker-37-enormous-stash-firearms-planned-mass-shooting.html

See something,say something,or in this case hear something ,say something...worked!!!

Reply
Aug 22, 2019 16:20:40   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
proud republican wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7381673/Marr**tt-worker-37-enormous-stash-firearms-planned-mass-shooting.html

See something,say something,or in this case hear something ,say something...worked!!!


Crazy!!

Reply
Aug 22, 2019 16:23:10   #
proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
Crazy!!


And plus California supposed to have strictest gun laws on the books..And still this man got a stash of high power guns!!!..Isn't interesting???

Reply
 
 
Aug 22, 2019 16:38:50   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
proud republican wrote:
And plus California supposed to have strictest gun laws on the books..And still this man got a stash of high power guns!!!..Isn't interesting???


Yes, very interesting!

Reply
Aug 22, 2019 16:40:35   #
proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
Yes, very interesting!


Just tells you that if a bad guy wants to get guns no gun laws will stop him!!!

Reply
Aug 22, 2019 17:09:49   #
bilordinary Loc: SW Washington
 
proud republican wrote:
Just tells you that if a bad guy wants to get guns no gun laws will stop him!!!


And it wasn't a law that stopped him!

Reply
Aug 22, 2019 17:13:24   #
proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA
 
bilordinary wrote:
And it wasn't a law that stopped him!


Right!!1..It was a good citizen,probably Republican...

Reply
 
 
Aug 22, 2019 17:59:16   #
PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco
 
proud republican wrote:
And plus California supposed to have strictest gun laws on the books..And still this man got a stash of high power guns!!!..Isn't interesting???


The article didn't say where he bought the guns and ammo, so he could have easily bought them in a state where it was easy. Also the article was clear he had manufactured some of the guns himself. Consistent universal background checks and limiting how much ammo can be purchased at once would help prevent mass shootings too.

Reply
Aug 22, 2019 18:14:40   #
bahmer
 
proud republican wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7381673/Marr**tt-worker-37-enormous-stash-firearms-planned-mass-shooting.html

See something,say something,or in this case hear something ,say something...worked!!!


California is getting crazier and crazier what are they going to come up with next?

Reply
Aug 22, 2019 18:47:29   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
PaulPisces wrote:
The article didn't say where he bought the guns and ammo, so he could have easily bought them in a state where it was easy. Also the article was clear he had manufactured some of the guns himself. Consistent universal background checks and limiting how much ammo can be purchased at once would help prevent mass shootings too.
No, it wouldn't. No amount of gun regulations will stop mentally disturbed human beings from committing mass murder. A number of mass k**lers obtained their guns legally, so what good did the background checks do? The only thing a universal background check would do is force a private sale of a gun to follow ATF regulations for the commercial sale of a gun. It would not change anything. We are dealing with a human condition, not the existence of firearms. The psycho-pathology of mass k**lers is a symptom of a sickness in human society, it isn't the disease.

And putting restrictions on ammo purchases is absolute nonsense.

Reply
Aug 22, 2019 18:57:30   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
proud republican wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7381673/Marr**tt-worker-37-enormous-stash-firearms-planned-mass-shooting.html

See something,say something,or in this case hear something ,say something...worked!!!

"Semi-automated weapons"??? That's a new one.

Reply
 
 
Aug 24, 2019 16:47:33   #
PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
No, it wouldn't. No amount of gun regulations will stop mentally disturbed human beings from committing mass murder. A number of mass k**lers obtained their guns legally, so what good did the background checks do? The only thing a universal background check would do is force a private sale of a gun to follow ATF regulations for the commercial sale of a gun. It would not change anything. We are dealing with a human condition, not the existence of firearms. The psycho-pathology of mass k**lers is a symptom of a sickness in human society, it isn't the disease.

And putting restrictions on ammo purchases is absolute nonsense.
No, it wouldn't. No amount of gun regulations will... (show quote)


I respectfully disagree.

Reply
Aug 24, 2019 17:55:02   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
PaulPisces wrote:
I respectfully disagree.
You are certainly free to disagree, but your disagreement does not alter the facts.

Neither active criminals nor those with criminal intent nor those who, for wh**ever reason, become dangerously unstable will obey any gun laws no matter how restrictive or prohibitive the laws may be.

Individuals with no criminal record have passed the background checks and then gone off the deep end. The FBI stats reveal that 74% of mass k**lers obtained their guns legally, IOW, they passed the background checks. So how will the implementation of a "universal BC" or more restrictive gun laws make any difference?

The problem ls in the root cause of such violence, not the effects. The problem is not in the availability of guns, it is not in the legally mandated process of purchasing guns, it isn't even in the fact that guns exist.

Above all, the problem cannot in any way be addressed, much less solved, through politics and legislation.

Reply
Aug 25, 2019 17:16:59   #
PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco
 
- After searching the FBI website I was unable to find the statistics you quote, so it would be helpful if you can share your source.

- I agree that the problem is in the root cause of violence. But I firmly believe that a culture that advocates for the unfettered "right" to own and operate guns of any kind and, whose sole purpose is violence, is an integral part of the root cause. It seems to me to be an important part of the idea that violence is becoming the first choice in resolving conflict.

- As to the availability of guns and homicides, the statistics tell a very different story. How do you explain the incredibly low rate of gun homicides in Japan (0.04 per 100,000 people in 2017 vs 4.43 in the U.S.), where it is incredibly difficult to own a gun?

Reply
Aug 25, 2019 19:09:57   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
PaulPisces wrote:
- After searching the FBI website I was unable to find the statistics you quote, so it would be helpful if you can share your source.

- I agree that the problem is in the root cause of violence. But I firmly believe that a culture that advocates for the unfettered "right" to own and operate guns of any kind and, whose sole purpose is violence, is an integral part of the root cause. It seems to me to be an important part of the idea that violence is becoming the first choice in resolving conflict.

- As to the availability of guns and homicides, the statistics tell a very different story. How do you explain the incredibly low rate of gun homicides in Japan (0.04 per 100,000 people in 2017 vs 4.43 in the U.S.), where it is incredibly difficult to own a gun?
- After searching the FBI website I was unable to ... (show quote)
No one I know, not gun owners, the NRA, or the 2nd Amendment itself advocates for the "unfettered right to own and operate guns".

The men who conceived and established the 2nd Amendment understood two things--that the right to defend one's life and property is God given, it is unalienable, it cannot be taken away from or given away by the possessor. No individual or group or a government can grant us that right or take it away. Secondly, they understood that those who keep and bear arms must assume full responsibility for doing so and that they must prepare, equip and train themselves to bear arms responsibly.

Regarding homicide rates, the US isn't even in the top 50 nations. In the US, the rate is 4.7 homicides per 100,000 people. The Central American countries Honduras, El Salvador, Venezuela, and Guatemala have the highest homicide rates in the world. In Honduras, for example, the homicide rate is 97 homicides per 100,000 people.

Japan is an island nation with a homogeneous people, about 1.75% of Japan's population are foreign nationals, and that includes visitors who stay over 90 days. Japan does not experience an extreme diversity of cultures, it is not what you'd call a multicultural society. 74 years ago this month, the Japanese learned a brutal lesson on the consequences of unfettered use of weapons. They haven't forgotten it.

James Madison, Property
29 Mar. 1792 Papers 14:266--68

This term in its particular application means "that d******n which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandise, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, wh**ever is his own.

According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.

More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!

A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

If there be a government then which p***es itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence (inference?) will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.