Fox tell Trump to arm Teachers

[wdmso]

[QUOTE=scottw;1138130]PARKLAND, Fla. — Broward County deputies received at least 18 calls warning them about Nikolas Cruz from 2008 to 2017, including concerns that he "planned to shoot up the school" and other threats and acts of violence before he was accused of killing 17 people at a high school.

The warnings, made by concerned people close to Cruz, came in phone calls to the Broward County Sheriff's Office, records show. At least five callers mentioned concern over his access to weapons, according to the documents. None of those warnings led to direct intervention.

In February 2016, neighbors told police that they were worried he “planned to shoot up the school” after seeing alarming pictures on Instagram showing Cruz brandishing guns.

About two months later, an unidentified caller told police that Cruz had been collecting guns and knives. The caller was “concerned (Cruz) will kill himself one day and believes he could be a school shooter in the making,” according to call details released by the Sheriff's

The NRA and 2nd supporters would have pitched a fit if they took his guns over instargram, or Internet posts yelling confiscation or FREEDOM of speech. .. they are now blaming everyone else . To insulate them from the laws they supported which gave assistance and legal standing for Cruz to have what he had .... law enforcement was toothless until he committed a crime ...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

The NRA and 2nd supporters would have pitched a fit if they took his guns over instargram, or Internet posts yelling confiscation or FREEDOM of speech. .....

ummmm....no

[scottw]

In Ms. Deschamps’s 911 call, she told the dispatcher that Mr. Cruz already had about eight guns that he kept at a friend’s house and that he had just been thrown out of the house after the tantrum in which he punched the walls, hurled things around her home and got into a fight with Rock, her 22-year-old son.

“He got pissed off and then he came in the house and started banging all the doors and banging in the walls and hitting the walls and throwing everything in the room,” she said. “And then my son got in there and he said, ‘Stop it,’ and he didn’t want to stop.”

She added: “It’s not the first time he put a gun on somebody’s head.” Ms. Deschamps made it clear that her new houseguest was obsessed with firearms and had threatened both his mother and his brother. “That’s all he wants is his gun,” she said. “And that’s all he cares about is his gun. He bought tons of bullets and stuff and I took it away from him.”

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by scottw

ummmm....no

Wayne is a lot like Trump actually. He talks without giving much thought to what he is spewing and it is usually just to get a rise from the group he feels threatened by.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Wayne is a lot like Trump actually. He talks without giving much thought to what he is spewing and it is usually just to get a rise from the group he feels threatened by.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you think the NRA and its supporters would agree with law enforcement and the Government when they took his guns based on internet posts and others strangers concerns and he had yet committed a crime?

if so you clearly dont understand the NRA or it members they are unable to see pass Confiscation

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015...ned-in-america
A Decade Later, Remember New Orleans … Gun Confiscation Can (and Has) Happened in America'

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

So you think the NRA and its supporters would agree with law enforcement and the Government when they took his guns based on internet posts and others strangers concerns and he had yet committed a crime?

ummm...yes...

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

ummm...yes...

President Trump ended an Obama-era gun law that required background checks to block the sale of guns to people with mental illnesses.

It was strongly opposed by the National Rifle
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, a leading supporter of the rule's repeal, has stated that "if a specific individual is likely to be violent due to the nature of their mental illness, then the government should have to prove it."

What your yes based on ? It surely can't be based on their words or past or current actions.. or your overly optimistic

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

President Trump ended an Obama-era gun law that required background checks to block the sale of guns to people with mental illnesses.

It was strongly opposed by the National Rifle
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, a leading supporter of the rule's repeal, has stated that "if a specific individual is likely to be violent due to the nature of their mental illness, then the government should have to prove it."

What your yes based on ? It surely can't be based on their words or past or current actions.. or your overly optimistic

you need to check your 'facts' on that

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

President Trump ended an Obama-era gun law that required background checks to block the sale of guns to people with mental illnesses.

I'll help you ....this is from snopes because everyone on the left loves snopes...

As we explained in a 17 February 2017 post, this rule — which never went into effect before being rescinded — did not change any existing laws regulating who is allowed to purchase guns. It merely would have provided a new way to enforce existing restrictions on gun sales by allowing a transfer of information from one agency to another. There are now, and have been for some time, laws that seek to limit gun sales to anyone “who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution” per Title 18 section 922(g) of the United States Code.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

So you think the NRA and its supporters would agree with law enforcement and the Government when they took his guns based on internet posts and others strangers concerns and he had yet committed a crime?

if so you clearly dont understand the NRA or it members they are unable to see pass Confiscation

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015...ned-in-america
A Decade Later, Remember New Orleans … Gun Confiscation Can (and Has) Happened in America'

Maybe the fact he held a gun to someone's head would be valid.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by wdmso

So you think the NRA and its supporters would agree with law enforcement and the Government when they took his guns based on internet posts and others strangers concerns and he had yet committed a crime?

if so you clearly dont understand the NRA or it members they are unable to see pass Confiscation

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015...ned-in-america
A Decade Later, Remember New Orleans … Gun Confiscation Can (and Has) Happened in America'

If you could actually read something and then digest it then perhaps you may have noticed my recent comments regarding the NRA and its members. Keep moving forward and don't let the facts get in the way of your filibustering.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by wdmso View Post

The NRA and 2nd supporters would have pitched a fit if they took his guns over instargram, or Internet posts yelling confiscation or FREEDOM of speech. .....

Originally Posted by scottw

ummmm....no

https://conservativeunite.org/r-gove...der-seize-guns

Gina Raimondo’s overreaching order allows law enforcement officers to take guns away from those in “red flag” cases.

I hate to say it but I told you so

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Originally Posted by wdmso View Post

The NRA and 2nd supporters would have pitched a fit if they took his guns over instargram, or Internet posts yelling confiscation or FREEDOM of speech. .....



https://conservativeunite.org/r-gove...der-seize-guns

Gina Raimondo’s overreaching order allows law enforcement officers to take guns away from those in “red flag” cases.

I hate to say it but I told you so

from your article....

"Many would agree that a person with a mental illness should not have a gun, but Raimondo’s executive order allows for the Rhode Island government to determine which individuals can have a gun."


I've yet to see anyone suggest, based on the evidence, that the kid in Florida should not have had his guns taken as a result of his prior actions...

[scottw]

in a related story....

Snow is apparently a dangerous substance.

The headmaster of a school in Britain has forbidden his students even to touch snow.

“It only takes one student, one piece of grit, one stone in a snowball in an eye, with an injury and we change our view,” said Ges Smith, the headmaster at Jo Richardson Community School, according to an article in the Telegraph.

“The rules are don’t touch the snow,” he continued. “If you don’t touch the snow you’re not going to throw it.”

In addition to potential injuries from snowballs, Smith is apparently also concerned that the snow might get students wet — which might interfere with their studies.

This is obviously insane.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

in a related story....

Snow is apparently a dangerous substance.

The headmaster of a school in Britain has forbidden his students even to touch snow.

“It only takes one student, one piece of grit, one stone in a snowball in an eye, with an injury and we change our view,” said Ges Smith, the headmaster at Jo Richardson Community School, according to an article in the Telegraph.

“The rules are don’t touch the snow,” he continued. “If you don’t touch the snow you’re not going to throw it.”

In addition to potential injuries from snowballs, Smith is apparently also concerned that the snow might get students wet — which might interfere with their studies.

This is obviously insane.

More likely Inane, also the reason the Vikings could easily invade the British Isles

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

from your article....

"Many would agree that a person with a mental illness should not have a gun, but Raimondo’s executive order allows for the Rhode Island government to determine which individuals can have a gun."


I've yet to see anyone suggest, based on the evidence, that the kid in Florida should not have had his guns taken as a result of his prior actions...

because he killed 17 people thats the only reason ..

from the rest of the article you may have missed, and it came to my attention by a gun friend who post all the Gun propaganda he can find The only red flag 2a people see is the confiscation red flag its all they ever see


If there are no grounds to legally arrest someone, why are police allowed to confiscate someone’s guns?


This ruling is another scathing attempt by Democrats to infringe on Americans right to bear arms and defend themselves against a threat. (really gotta love that mind set as if Dem dont own guns )

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

If there are no grounds to legally arrest someone, why are police allowed to confiscate someone’s guns?

Restraining Orders
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=wdmso;1138142]

Originally Posted by scottw

PARKLAND, Fla.

The NRA and 2nd supporters would have pitched a fit if they took his guns over instargram, or Internet posts yelling confiscation or FREEDOM of speech. .. they are now blaming everyone else . To insulate them from the laws they supported which gave assistance and legal standing for Cruz to have what he had .... law enforcement was toothless until he committed a crime ...

You literally have no idea what you are talking about. The NRA is appalled that this kid was able to buy this gun, given his history. This is a law enforcement failure at every level, not an NRA failure. I don't particularly like the NRA, but they have no fingerprints on this. Zip.

Law enforcement could not have failed more spectacularly. This kid did everything but walk around with a sign saying "I am a mass murderer, please stop me'.

It's evidence that the government isn't as omnipotent as we might wish to think they are.

[Sea Dangles]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1138153]

Originally Posted by wdmso

You literally have no idea what you are talking about. The NRA is appalled that this kid was able to buy this gun, given his history. This is a law enforcement failure at every level, not an NRA failure. I don't particularly like the NRA, but they have no fingerprints on this. Zip.

Law enforcement could not have failed more spectacularly. This kid did everything but walk around with a sign saying "I am a mass murderer, please stop me'.

It's evidence that the government isn't as omnipotent as we might wish to think they are.

Jim, you could not be more wrong in regards to the NRA. Maybe you need to familiarize yourself with the organization which is remarkably powerful and goes to great expense to allow access to guns for those who wish to own them. I am not saying they are not appalled,just that their efforts through the years are why guns are so accessible.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=Sea Dangles;1138156]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Jim, you could not be more wrong in regards to the NRA. Maybe you need to familiarize yourself with the organization which is remarkably powerful and goes to great expense to allow access to guns for those who wish to own them. I am not saying they are not appalled,just that their efforts through the years are why guns are so accessible.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am sure that you have a point, which is why I'm not a huge fan. But I don't think the NRA opposes the tiny speck of common sense that would say that this kid shouldn't have been allowed to have a toy gun.

I think we need more restrictions than the NRA would support, which is why I'm not a huge fan. However I don't think the NRA would oppose policy that would say that people like this should not be allowed to own a gun. I could be wrong, but I don't think they're that crazy.

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=Sea Dangles;1138156]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Jim, you could not be more wrong in regards to the NRA. Maybe you need to familiarize yourself with the organization which is remarkably powerful and goes to great expense to allow access to guns for those who wish to own them. I am not saying they are not appalled,just that their efforts through the years are why guns are so accessible.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you may have been more right than I thought, this was on Foxnews..."However, the Washington Post reported that the NRA fought the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which mandated federal background checks on firearm purchasers, suing the federal government once the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was up and running. The NRA had argued that the entire law, including the NICS provision, be struck down as unconstitutional, the report said. "

Maybe they're so fanatical that they want everyone to have a gun?

Can a member comment? Must be some NRA members here...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"However, the Washington Post reported that the NRA fought the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which mandated federal background checks on firearm purchasers, suing the federal government once the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was up and running. The NRA had argued that the entire law, including the NICS provision, be struck down as unconstitutional, the report said. "

maybe read a little more...guess you have to wonder about the supreme court too

The NRA argued that the Brady Act was unconstitutional because its provisions requiring local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks was a violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

In its 1997 decision in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds. The Court determined that this provision violated both the concept of federalism and that of the unitary executive.

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1138159]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

you may have been more right than I thought, this was on Foxnews..."However, the Washington Post reported that the NRA fought the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which mandated federal background checks on firearm purchasers, suing the federal government once the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was up and running. The NRA had argued that the entire law, including the NICS provision, be struck down as unconstitutional, the report said. "

Maybe they're so fanatical that they want everyone to have a gun?

Can a member comment? Must be some NRA members here...

Here is the NRA's objection to the Brady Bill at that time. It does not object to government having a say in gun ownership. You might not agree with the NRA's reasoning at that time, but here's the transcript of the NRA's objection to the Brady Bill:

https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/...&context=jcred