read this article and wondered...

Silverback · Aug 9, 2019

miamited said:
Man in anthem attack convinced Trump ordered it, lawyer says

Hi all,

I just read this article and it says that the man was convicted of violent assault in 2010. Now he has apparently committed another violent assault. I was just wondering, do you think this guy owns any guns? If he does, or doesn't, would he qualify, in your estimation, as someone who shouldn't?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Was his assault conviction a felony, or, a misdemeanor? If a misdemeanor then providing it was not a domestic violence conviction he would have no problem passing a background check at the federal level. His state may have some additional requirements that could bar him.

Silverback · Aug 9, 2019

eleos1954 said:
People who are "bent" on harming others will find a way to do that ... guns or not ... why just look at those who own guns? How would that be done? How and who decides who is mentally unstable or not?

If one is found mentally unstable (by whatever entity would have that responsibility (the government/police/judge?) ... is that for life? or if a person is treated ... can that person have their constitutional right to possess a fire arm restored?

Who would be the authority deciding all these things?

Would one who is reported "thought" to be mentally unstable then be required to submit to a full blown mental examination to verify that claim? By who? Would they have the right to challenge that examination?

If you have been involuntarily committed (like baker acted) you loose your gun rights, if that has been reported, which it probably was not

eleos1954 · Aug 9, 2019

Silverback said:
If you have been involuntarily committed (like baker acted) you loose your gun rights, if that has been reported, which it probably was not

Had he been involuntary committed or not?

Hank77 · Aug 9, 2019

Silverback said:
I have been to many gun shows, Every vendor who sells firearms has to do a background check...at least in Florida anyway.

In my state as well, but many people, who are not licensed dealers and who want to sell a gun show up at gun shows . In most state they can sell that gun to anyone without doing a background check. In other words they are private sales between individuals no dealer involved.
In states that don't require background checks on all sales and trades people can buy guns online with no dealer involved.

yeshuaslavejeff · Aug 9, 2019

miamited said:
I don't agree that the system we live under is 'grossly' unjust and unbalanced. There is some injustice in our system. Hey O.J. got off, right? But there isn't any gross injustice within our legal system.

(btw, I don't remember the op/ or title of this thread, or topic

)
Just this part of this post here and now.
Look into, if you can, Yahuweh Willing, the total unbalance and unjust health care system.
A mountain of evidence since 1902 used to be available to expose it all.
A lot has been censored, but there's more than enough still to find it in a few hours or less.

Petunia · Aug 9, 2019

miamited said:
Man in anthem attack convinced Trump ordered it, lawyer says

Hi all,

I just read this article and it says that the man was convicted of violent assault in 2010. Now he has apparently committed another violent assault. I was just wondering, do you think this guy owns any guns? If he does, or doesn't, would he qualify, in your estimation, as someone who shouldn't?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

I would hope a case like this would qualify as someone who shouldn't own weapons. Also, someone who should be under regular mental health exams. I don't know if this guy owned a weapon or not, but a background check would be useful in a case like this. A background check would expose his mental health and violent tendencies.

Silverback · Aug 9, 2019

Petunia said:
I would hope a case like this would qualify as someone who shouldn't own weapons. Also, someone who should be under regular mental health exams. I don't know if this guy owned a weapon or not, but a background check would be useful in a case like this. A background check would expose his mental health and violent tendencies.

Maybe, unless he was adjusted by a judge as mentally defective, or his record of convictions include those that would bar him from a gun purchase, then he will walk out with the weapon.

Most of the questions you answer on the background check form depend on the person being honest. Some states have resisted sending medical information for inclusion in the NICS.

In the end though, if he wants to get a gun for criminal purposes all he has to do is go to the local hood, bario, or trailer park and he will get one, and the transaction will take less time than a NICS background check...that's just the truth.

Petunia · Aug 9, 2019

Silverback said:
In the end though, if he wants to get a gun for criminal purposes all he has to do is go to the local hood, bario, or trailer park and he will get one, and the transaction will take less time than a NICS background check...that's just the truth.

Unfortunately, it is the truth. There will always be criminals. But we can't let that be an excuse for not doing what we can to make America safer. By law, gun ownership needs to come with responsibility.

miamited · Aug 9, 2019

Silverback said:
I have been to many gun shows, Every vendor who sells firearms has to do a background check...at least in Florida anyway.

Hi silverback,

Perhaps that's because the people you bought from were licensed dealers at gun shows. However, here's the law:

Known as the "gun show loophole," most states do not require background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows from private individuals -- federal law only requires licensed dealers to conduct checks.

So, a person can buy a booth at a gun show and represent himself as just some private individual just selling his own stash and sell guns to people all day long without ever filling out a background check and having it processed.

I did check and that is the law in Florida also.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

saved24 · Aug 9, 2019

Of course he should not have a gun.... Someone may have said this already.... but anyone who really wants to get a gun can get one even if he's been told not to have one. That's what criminals do.

miamited · Aug 9, 2019

Silverback said:
Was his assault conviction a felony, or, a misdemeanor? If a misdemeanor then providing it was not a domestic violence conviction he would have no problem passing a background check at the federal level. His state may have some additional requirements that could bar him.

Hi silverback,

According to the article, it was a felony conviction. However, I think most people know of criminals, who are the career minded type, that have served felony convictions that have access to holding a firearm in their hands. If they don't know such types personally, then they can read their local police blotter for all the arrests of convicted felons caught with firearms.

Somehow, I rather doubt that these people who seem to set out some bright sunny morning to go mow down a bunch a folk in cold blood are those who are particularly concerned with not breaking the law.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

miamited · Aug 9, 2019

yeshuaslavejeff said:
(btw, I don't remember the op/ or title of this thread, or topic )
Just this part of this post here and now.
Look into, if you can, Yahuweh Willing, the total unbalance and unjust health care system.
A mountain of evidence since 1902 used to be available to expose it all.
A lot has been censored, but there's more than enough still to find it in a few hours or less.

Hi Y,

Sheez, really? Why is that you refuse to go bang your drum in your own band?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

miamited · Aug 9, 2019

Petunia said:
I would hope a case like this would qualify as someone who shouldn't own weapons. Also, someone who should be under regular mental health exams. I don't know if this guy owned a weapon or not, but a background check would be useful in a case like this. A background check would expose his mental health and violent tendencies.

Hi petunia,

Well, that's certainly a 'hopeful' position. Let's look at the last few mass shooters. Has any evidence been found that any of these shooters would have been on some sort of 'red flag' list, if there had been one as proposed?

Connor Betts: Dayton Ohio 10 people dead.
Patrick Crusius: El Paso Texas 22 people dead.
Santino Legan: Gilroy California 4 people dead.
James Cloud: White Swan Washington 5 people dead.
Ian Long: Thousand Oaks California 12 people dead.
Robert Bowers: Pittsburgh Pennsylvania 11 people dead.
David Katz: Jacksonville Florida 3 people dead.
Albert Wong: Yountville California 5 people dead.
Nicholas Cruz: Parkland Florida 17 people dead.

This is a list only going back 2 years where we had multiple deaths by shooters who would have been pretty much strangers to the victims. I'm not including here what are classified as mass shootings of family members or drug deals gone bad and such.

I realize that for most of us, we wouldn't have access to the information that I'm asking anyway, but just trying to get us to really think about how we might get a handle on this apparent problem. I don't think that anyone can truthfully deny that the U.S. has a pretty serious problem with firearm's deaths as compared to most other nations. I think the only nation that tops us in actual gun deaths is Brazil. Our rate of gun deaths is 4.43/1000. While this isn't the worst rate (28th), it is for what are considered the wealthy, civilized nations. Is that the place we seek to be? The 28th worst nation in the world for firearm's deaths out of some 200+ nations? Does that fill our breast with pride?

Special note for Y, yes I'm sure we are the leader in all types of medical malpractice deaths, too.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

yeshuaslavejeff · Aug 9, 2019

miamited said:
Hi Y,

Sheez, really? Why is that you refuse to go bang your drum in your own band?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

The testimony of Jesus, the testimony of Truth, is not just my drum, but every believer's testimony. THANKS !

And , yes (I think), I often see only just one post, or part of a post, to reply to, and have sometimes had to go back and edit because of the section it is in....

miamited · Aug 9, 2019

Hi Y,

I'm sorry, but how exactly do you see your claims about medical malpractice as somehow being the proclamation of the testimony of Jesus, the testimony of Truth?

yeshuaslavejeff said:
The testimony of Jesus, the testimony of Truth, is not just my drum, but every believer's testimony. THANKS !

You then wrote:
And , yes (I think), I often see only just one post, or part of a post, to reply to, and have sometimes had to go back and edit because of the section it is in....

So, all of those responses to me in this thread where you quoted comments that I had made and your responses that followed about medical malpractice is some sort of mistake on your part and so you went back and 'shalomed' all of your responses, is because you can't concentrate on more than a piece of a post at a time? Is that what you're saying by this statement?

I'm honestly curious as to your logical and mental abilities to carry on a conversation. Do you always just ignore what others are saying and the topic of a discussion because what you have to say is sooooo much more important...to you?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

miamited · Aug 9, 2019

Hi again Y,

I'm just trying to get a handle on that last comment that you made:

yeshuaslavejeff said:
And , yes (I think), I often see only just one post, or part of a post, to reply to, and have sometimes had to go back and edit because of the section it is in....

So, correct me if I'm wrong please. This entire discussion has been about an article that I read regarding a man who seems to be a bit on the dangerous side and whether or not he would fit the 'red flag' criteria that is being discussed now as a type of gun control. You decided to start addressing my comments by drawing away from the OP and talking about your specific concern with all the people dying because of medical mistakes.

I asked you, nicely I believe, to start up your own thread if you wanted to address the issue of medical mistakes in America today. I made a comment about you beating your own drum in my thread and now you have somehow concluded that the importance of your issue regarding medical mistakes and my asking you to take it somewhere else, is somehow tied to the proclamation of Jesus' testimony and truth. Is that about the gist of this discussion now between you and I?

Oh, and according to your post #65, that's because you can't be bothered to understand what the topic of discussion is in any particular thread. You just shoot off with whatever you feel like saying in threads because your cause is soooo much more important for you to be bothered with keeping up with the discussion issue of a thread. Would that be about right according to your own testimony?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

miamited · Aug 9, 2019

Hi again Y,

One last response and then I think I'm done with responding to your posts. Here's what your post #65 was responding to and the response that you gave:

What you quoted from my previous post:
I don't agree that the system we live under is 'grossly' unjust and unbalanced. There is some injustice in our system. Hey O.J. got off, right? But there isn't any gross injustice within our legal system.

Your resonse:
(btw, I don't remember the op/ or title of this thread, or topic

)
Just this part of this post here and now.
Look into, if you can, Yahuweh Willing, the total unbalance and unjust health care system.
A mountain of evidence since 1902 used to be available to expose it all.
A lot has been censored, but there's more than enough still to find it in a few hours or less.

Even in this, where you say that you can't be bothered to concern yourself with what this whole thread is about and that you're only addressing this specific quote, I don't see any connection to what I said, that you quoted, and what you responded to what I said. My comment specifically mentioned that the injustice/unbalance that I was addressing was 'THE LEGAL SYSTEM'. So, how exactly does your response, again about the medical mistakes, have any bearing on my claim and why do you feel that you're addressing 'this part of this post here and now'?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

yeshuaslavejeff · Aug 12, 2019

miamited said:
Would that be about right

No.

Queller · Aug 24, 2019

joshua 1 9 said:
Oh well that settles it, we all know a lawyer would never lie to defend his client. Whatever they say it is all a story. You either believe them and their defense or not. That is what a trial is all about. You are suppose to weight the evidence. God is a God of absolute justice and his scales are perfectly balanced. We can go boldly before the throne of Grace. But if you want to trust in man and in lawyers to tell you the truth then good luck with that.

His lawyer saying he's guilty is a lie to defend his client? In what world is that logical?

joshua 1 9 · Aug 25, 2019

Queller said:
His lawyer saying he's guilty is a lie to defend his client? In what world is that logical?

The world of sarcasm.

read this article and wondered...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

God is Love

Well-Known Member

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Ted

Forgiven

Ted

Ted

Ted

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

Ted

Ted

Ted

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

I'm where?

Well-Known Member

Similar threads