So who made the call about 1000 Oaks?

Another shooting in California this time but not a peep on this board and very little in the world...why? Who told the left to keep their heads down and say nothing? I can kinda guess why...it's California with some of the strictest gun laws that didn't work again. With a democrat governor with narrow shoulders that can take no blame. A hero came out of law enforcement who laid down his life for his fellow man. So many touchy mines for the left to involve themselves in so better to ignore the whole tragedy this time. Still, who commands the media, the politicians, the celebrities, and the online activists to say nothing? Or maybe this is the reality of the situation. Without someone ordering up some outrage it doesn't really exist, just sadness. The left has been busy this past week slandering candidates, blowing through millions with poor results, and now trying to steal elections. Maybe the left is just overwhelmed.

And one would believe that it would be front page in the Liberal Media, ....

.... since the shooter was a Marine. Or do they just pick on One-Eyed Navy Seals.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/califor...-bar-shooting/
Another mentally disturbed individual - unfortunately a veteran with PTSD- who had previous police interactions. Acting out committing a heinous crime.
How many of these shootings are enabled by the media coverage- people that would otherwise never think about suh an action.
I cannot advocate censoring media coverage - It is a very difficult problem to identify and keep weapons of all kinds - not just guns- out of the hands of unstable individuals.
Simplistic answer is to "ban guns' - doesn't work - other weapons will be used. See reports of similar assaults in foreign countries with no access to firearms.
The very poor care for the mentally ill is a nationwide disgrace. A major cause of homelessness and violence. Unless the country adresses the root cause of these horrible incidents - not much will change.
Easy answers - no.
Better mental health care and identification of at-risk individuals.
Plug up some of the holes in our weapons system - improve the background check system, no sales without checks at gun shows, better reporting to the background check system of mentally ill individuals legally barred from possessing weapons.
Won't fix all the issues- the silent"lone wolf" is almost possible to detect and predict.
California and its Leftist leadership has not the interest or character to try to addres the root problems- better to ban a "pseudo-assault" weapon such as AR-15,and trumpet that the politicians did something.
A true assault weapon has full auto capability - a semi-auto only weapon is not an assault weapon - no matter how scary to the leftists it appears. Full auto weapons are carefullly regulated by the NFA of 1986 - and never been a crime committed with a legally transferred NFA weapon.

Better mental health care and identification of at-risk individuals.

Unfortunately, the "mental health system" history and experience in this country does not support standards by which persons should be denied fundamental rights that have historically been jealously guarded and shielded from Government intrusion, particularly when those "rights" and "privileges" were first and foremost on the minds of those initial authors and promoters.

That is because of the unscientific nature of mental health evaluations and assessments, which are heavily burdened with discretionary personal opinions and bias. That system is the darling of the Liberals and now they want to use it to confiscate firearms. No thanks.

Some of the suggestions, given the realities of the criminal justice system and family laws around the country, are unworkable, if not oppressively ridiculous, and the recent public spectacle of the KavanaughII hearing is a perfect example.

Almost to the person who opposes guns the committee members ASSUMED the ACCUSATIONS were true WITHOUT CORROBORATION.

LL- Agreed- a good point and valid
Part of the difficult problem
Very difficult to sort out those who are dangerous from the many patients receiving mental health care who are not a threat for violent behavior. And should not be deprived of Constitutional right to bear arms.

Open for constructive solutions.

...it's California with some of the strictest gun laws that didn't work again. With a democrat governor.
And again the same profile MENTAL health issues and Nothing to help vets PTSD again, LE contacts about mental health.
The conversation should be about helping with mental health and helping vets

Pelosii is start the same old same old Hoplophobic reaction more gun control

I say we give guns to everyone and let everyone with a gun vote. That is you new id.

LL- Agreed- a good point and valid
Part of the difficult problem
Very difficult to sort out those who are dangerous from the many patients receiving mental health care who are not a threat for violent behavior. And should not be deprived of Constitutional right to bear arms.

Open for constructive solutions. Originally Posted by oeb11

Generally speaking ... those who are "a threat for violent behavior" are typically locked up and don't have access to a firearm.

A PROBLEM with the Liberal thinking (if one can be so generous) is .... #1 .. it doesn't apply to them ... #2 .. their agenda is not to PROTECT SOCIETY OR INDIVIDUALS (or they would oppose abortion), but to rid society of firearms. So the "focus" is not on the individuals but placing another obstacle for individuals to be unable to have or obtain a firearm, which means, again, their focus ASSUMES the firearm is the "bad thing" ... and not the person.

We will NEVER have ALL law violators locked up, and we will NEVER have all persons who MAY BE a threat to themselves or others LOCKED UP. Furthermore, does taking their guns away solve the problem? Knives, clubs, cars, ... pressure cookers?

I say we give guns to everyone and let everyone with a gun vote. That is you new id. Originally Posted by WTF

I say ... let them purchase a gun or receive one as a personal gift ... if they have passed a criminal background check and it's determined they lack a "history" of felonies and/or violence convictions (or deferred adjudications/probation/etc)...

... so they can protect their RIGHT TO VOTE and assure it remains ...without some Liberal loons trying to destroy that right by "stuffing ballot boxes" or filling out blank ballots in a closed library and lying about it.

As things have gone for the past several years and look like they are headed for the next couple, the underlying purpose of the 2nd Amendment is being emphasized and UNDERLINED!

Do they really want one?



Somewhat "premature" I'd say, and certainly a serious underestimation and miscalculation.

I don't bet on politics ... but if I were, I'd put my money on the "other guys"!

I say we give guns to everyone and let everyone with a gun vote. That is you new id. Originally Posted by WTF

I think you should also own real estate and pay at least $25,000 per year in taxes to vote.

I like the current ID laws in Texas for voting - so waving a gun around would be unnecessary. A certificate of gun ownership and a sworn affidavit should suffice.

Also, when an illegal alien votes, they should be required to sign their name to the ballot, provide a valid ID from their country of origin, and then we should tabulate those votes to see which party benefits the most from illegal immigration.

I like the current ID laws in Texas for voting - so waving a gun around would be unnecessary.
Originally Posted by friendly fred

As George Carlin would have said: "Let them eat marbles!"

Do you really want anyone that dumb voting?

I think you should also own real estate and pay at least $25,000 per year in taxes to vote.

I like the current ID laws in Texas for voting - so waving a gun around would be unnecessary. A certificate of gun ownership and a sworn affidavit should suffice.

. Originally Posted by friendly fred

Jesus....why do you want all those restrictions before being able to buy a gun?

Nobody should have to get a certificate to be able to own a gun.

Are you some liberal that wants to restrict gun owners rights?

Next you'll outlaw me buying a machine gun. . .

Jesus....why do you want all those restrictions before being able to buy a gun?

Nobody should have to get a certificate to be able to own a gun.

Are you some liberal that wants to restrict gun owners rights?

Next you'll outlaw me buying a machine gun. . . Originally Posted by WTF

I'm not worried about guns - getting rid of them would require a constitutional amendment which I can't see happening.

I want to restrict people from voting who don't pay enough in taxes and vote in people who give them free money.

I want to restrict people from voting who don't pay enough in taxes ... Originally Posted by friendly fred

... revisiting the "old days," but also that could eliminate a lot of folks who provide jobs for folks who do pay taxes, but their boss expenses their salaries and benefits, which reduces the boss's taxes.

... revisiting the "old days," but also that could eliminate a lot of folks who provide jobs for folks who do pay taxes, but their boss expenses their salaries and benefits, which reduces the boss's taxes. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Well, if you pay someone a salary from your business, you can certainly deduct their taxes as you see fit.

It creates a nice little situation where people might voluntarily pay more in tax to get their right to vote.

1000 Oaks was a tragedy, and now they have a fire in the area. Sad week. I blame Soros for creating an atmosphere of hate.