[nikonf4] Re: guns

  • From: "" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "WiltW@xxxxxxx" for DMARC)
  • To: nikonf4@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:53:50 -0400 (EDT)

I did not at all put judgment into the validity of 'defending' their  
actions... I merely said that mental issues affect most othese  shooters. 
 As most of these loonies also self destruct via a bullet to the head,  
there is not need for any 'defense', in terms of legal consideration or in 
terms  of deciding to institutionalize them (if they survive).  My point is 
 'more laws' is NO SOLUTION, 'more enforcement of existing laws' is also NO 
Our societal problem is the existence of so many mentally/emotionally  
unbalanced folks out there, and recognizing their ills soon enough to do  
something about it, and prevent the shooting rampages.

In a message dated 6/16/2014 11:27:20 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
woc2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

Again, kinda proves that  point, more laws is not what is needed. 
For some reason a segment  of the populous seem to think that adding laws 
will make all things better  when in fact attending to the issue is the real 
answer.  We don’t want  mental facilities because it makes someone feel bad. 
 Better to flood the  streets of big cities with challenged people to live 
on the streets, commit  crimes they are not conscience of and the like.  And 
best of all, to  reproduce at will.  But then we also think it’s a right to 
create scads  of children we are ill equipped to properly raise.    
Also interesting how many  of these ‘unbalanced’ shooters can figure out 
which is the best place to get  maximum carnage by going to places where guns 
are not allowed to help insure  no one might have one and cut our right to 
be famous for 15 minutes short.   
You say they are all  unbalanced, and I am inclined to agree that you have 
to be a bit  whacky to do it, but I do not agree that it is always the 
acceptable defense  that bleeding heart folks do. 
From:  nikonf4-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:nikonf4-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
On  Behalf Of Redacted sender "WiltW@xxxxxxx" for DMARC
Sent:  Monday, June 16, 2014 1:42 PM
To: woc2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;  nikonf4@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [nikonf4] Re:  guns

The  issue, based upon who has been involved in the many shootings taking 
place on  school grounds and elsewhere, is NOT REGULATION, and is also NOT 
ENFORCEMENT  of existing laws, but is the issue of MENTAL HEALTH...the 
shooters have all  been unbalanced!


In a  message dated 6/16/2014 9:36:41 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, 
_woc2@earthlink.net_ (mailto:woc2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)   writes:

The Supreme Court  dealt a rare blow to the gun lobby Monday by ruling that 
purchasers must  report when they are buying firearms for other people. 
Well, well,  well. 
Perhaps they are finally  getting serious about this crap.  They don’t need 
more laws, far too  many already, just need to enforce the laws that are 
already there.  A  novel thought would be to standardize gun crime laws across 
the country and  actually put little Johnnie and Janine away when they 
commit a crime instead  of letting them off the hook because they didn’t win a 
prize in  3rd grade and now suffer for life.  A good start, have a gun  at a 
crime scene? Minimum 5 years.  Pull a gun at a crime scene?  Minimum 10 
years. Shoot a gun at a crime scene and wound  someone?   Minimum 20 years.  
Kill someone?  Life, or  death.  The liberal crew say that strong punishment is 
not a determent  to committing crime, but one thing is for sure.  They 
person with the  strong punishment is deterred, they won’t commit any for a 

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - _www.avg.com_ (http://www.avg.com/) 
Version: 2014.0.4592 / Virus  Database: 3964/7686 - Release Date:  06/16/14

Other related posts: