Mass Killer bought his rifles legally.

eider

Well-known member
The BBC reports that Brandon Hole was interviewed by FBI agents last year and police seized a shotgun that he owned. Although his mother had reported her worries about his mental health he was able to purchase two rifles later on, last year.

And his mass shooting has been one of several this month, we hear.

His 2nd Amendment rights were solid for him, it seems.

He began shooting "randomly" almost immediaely after exiting his car, according to police.
Seven people were also injured and the gunman apparently killed himself before police arrived, officials say.
At least four of those killed were members of the Sikh community, according to local media.
"It has to end," President Biden said. "Every day there's a mass shooting in the United States if you count all those who were killed out in the streets of our cities and our rural areas, it's a national embarrassment and it must come to an end."


www.bbc.co.uk › world-us-canada-56791321
21 hours ago — Brandon Hole legally bought two rifles despite having had a gun ... did not identify Hole as following extremist ideology, Agent Keenan said.
 

eider

Well-known member
Was there a point to your post?

You cannot deny everyone's rights to protect us from a few nuts.
So you missed my point.
But I got yours.
You think that mentally ill folks should have the right to buy rifles, pistols, grenade launchers, shoulder fire missiles etc.
If that's what you think, then that's what you think.
 

Right Divider

Body part
So you missed my point.
You rarely make you "point" clear, so don't be surprised when people miss it.
But I got yours.
Good for you (we will see that you didn't, though).
You think that mentally ill folks should have the right to buy rifles, pistols, grenade launchers, shoulder fire missiles etc.
You are telling LIES. I do NOT think that nuts should have guns (or knives, or bombs, or tanks, etc. etc. etc.)
If that's what you think, then that's what you think.
I don't think that... that's just you LYING about what you think that I think.

Again, you cannot keep guns away from nuts by denying EVERYONE their right to defend themselves. That is completely immoral.
 

eider

Well-known member
You rarely make you "point" clear, so don't be surprised when people miss it.

Good for you (we will see that you didn't, though).

You are telling LIES. I do NOT think that nuts should have guns (or knives, or bombs, or tanks, etc. etc. etc.)

I don't think that... that's just you LYING about what you think that I think.

Again, you cannot keep guns away from nuts by denying EVERYONE their right to defend themselves. That is completely immoral.
This is fun.
Everybody that you disagree with is a LIAR!
Funny. But daft.

Now, it seems that you do think that mentally ill or extremist folks should not be allowed to buy grenade launchers, or whatever, so how would you handle that problem?
 

Right Divider

Body part
This is fun.
Everybody that you disagree with is a LIAR!
Funny. But daft.
You lied about what I was saying. That's obvious for everyone to see.
Now, it seems that you do think that mentally ill or extremist folks should not be allowed to buy grenade launchers, or whatever, so how would you handle that problem?
Not by taking everyone's rights away.
 
Last edited:

eider

Well-known member
You lied about what I was saying. That's obvious for everyone to see.

Not by taking everyone's rights away.
You ignored post 6, which shows that if anything you lied about me
It might be better if you did not shout 'liar' at people.
 

eider

Well-known member
You lied about what I was saying. That's obvious for everyone to see.

Not by taking everyone's rights away.
You failed to answer my question.
So what would you do to protect from unsuitable folks obtaining weapons, and mass killing with them.??
 

Idolater

"Never believe anyone who is not cross-examined."
You failed to answer the question
What would you do to prevent, deter, reduce the instances of mentally ill and extremist folks obtaining weapons legally and killing with them?
RD's giving you the boundary condition for any proposed solution Eider. You do know that? Recognize it? He's saying, "I don't know exactly what to do (or at least I'm not saying it right now) but I for a certainty know exactly what NOT to do," and you just aren't responding to that. And so why would he offer an answer to your question, when you're not acknowledging what he is saying?

RD's right to be saying what he's saying too. Murder victims have their rights robbed of them, that's for sure. And just as sure, is our human right to self-defense, which cannot be morally abrogated for any purpose, no matter how "obvious" a rights-depriving "solution" may appear to be.

We have a murder problem in America. For some reason, you all don't have quite the murder problem that we have. Ours pales in comparison to some other large countries, but it's notably bigger than most of our democratic allies, like the UK, Australia, NZ, and most if not all of western Europe. And Taiwan and Japan and South Korea.

So a solution, in order to be moral, must protect our rights, while addressing the murder problem. I would guess that we have a political situation right now that somehow is advantageous for murderers to roam free. Or, that we are somehow losing our ability to instruct children on morals. That could be the problem, if suicide is also considered a moral matter, because our suicide problem is twice as bad as our murder problem---about twice as many Americans are killed every year by their own hand, than are killed by someone else's.

With hard morals, like the prohibition of murder, our minds should never permit us to make that choice, never ever, not under any circumstances, and I'm afraid that for many people, they just haven't closed certain moral doors in their minds, and they need to.
 

eider

Well-known member
RD's giving you the boundary condition for any proposed solution Eider. You do know that? Recognize it? He's saying, "I don't know exactly what to do (or at least I'm not saying it right now) but I for a certainty know exactly what NOT to do," and you just aren't responding to that. And so why would he offer an answer to your question, when you're not acknowledging what he is saying?

RD's right to be saying what he's saying too. Murder victims have their rights robbed of them, that's for sure. And just as sure, is our human right to self-defense, which cannot be morally abrogated for any purpose, no matter how "obvious" a rights-depriving "solution" may appear to be.

We have a murder problem in America. For some reason, you all don't have quite the murder problem that we have. Ours pales in comparison to some other large countries, but it's notably bigger than most of our democratic allies, like the UK, Australia, NZ, and most if not all of western Europe. And Taiwan and Japan and South Korea.

So a solution, in order to be moral, must protect our rights, while addressing the murder problem. I would guess that we have a political situation right now that somehow is advantageous for murderers to roam free. Or, that we are somehow losing our ability to instruct children on morals. That could be the problem, if suicide is also considered a moral matter, because our suicide problem is twice as bad as our murder problem---about twice as many Americans are killed every year by their own hand, than are killed by someone else's.

With hard morals, like the prohibition of murder, our minds should never permit us to make that choice, never ever, not under any circumstances, and I'm afraid that for many people, they just haven't closed certain moral doors in their minds, and they need to.

Thanks for the time you took to answer, Idolater.
Let's look the other way, then........ why not support the right to keep and bear machine guns, grenades, grenade launchers, portable motors, shoulder-borne missiles, ......... flame throwers are already legal to buy, own and use in every State but Maryland, and why overlook crossbows, swords, battle axes and all..... in fact every Arm that's covered by 'Borne Arms'.

How does it go?:-
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

If you want to remove legal obstacles you've got a long way to go, it seems.
(You should see the Musk Flamethrower @ $500. Quite the piece of kit.)
 

eider

Well-known member
Which grenade launcher and bazooka attack causes you such concern that you want to deny everyone their rights to guns?
There haven't been any, so I wonder if you could buy, keep and bear them?
And Flamethrowers are legal to buy, keep and use in all States but one.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't mention guns, it mentions arms.
Have you got a shoulder-fire missile?

This is quite interesting.
 

Right Divider

Body part
There haven't been any, so I wonder if you could buy, keep and bear them?
And Flamethrowers are legal to buy, keep and use in all States but one.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't mention guns, it mentions arms.
Have you got a shoulder-fire missile?

This is quite interesting.
Your "topic" was about guns.
 
Top