[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
that
'more laws' is NO SOLUTION, 'more enforcement of existing laws' is also NO
SOLUTION.
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.
--wilt
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!
--wilt
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
long
time.
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:
