tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post4721055062050827341..comments2024-02-05T03:41:13.688+01:00Comments on Mikeb302000: Melbourne Florida ShootingAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-20738160879613908112010-09-18T18:40:57.009+02:002010-09-18T18:40:57.009+02:00apparently, you don't seeapparently, you don't seeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-5775427396025648962010-09-18T13:38:55.548+02:002010-09-18T13:38:55.548+02:00I see the problem quite well. Guns in homes cause...I see the problem quite well. Guns in homes causes more problems than it solves, far more.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-45535883721988194452010-09-16T17:27:08.747+02:002010-09-16T17:27:08.747+02:00Mikeb:Don't you realize that keeping guns in h...Mikeb:<br><br><i>Don't you realize that keeping guns in homes occupied by "shitsacks" is a problem?</i><br><br>Being unarmed in a home occupied by shitsacks is also a problem. The <b>root</b> of the problem, you see (or, apparently, you <i>don't</i> see), is the shitsacks, rather than the guns.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-41810572688022592612010-09-16T17:02:50.977+02:002010-09-16T17:02:50.977+02:00Yes, I realize that. Don't you realize that k...Yes, I realize that. Don't you realize that keeping guns in homes occupied by "shitsacks" is a problem?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-74385535465565851902010-09-15T20:18:33.385+02:002010-09-15T20:18:33.385+02:00How the hell does being related to someone who act...How the hell does <i>being related</i> to someone who acts evilly, irresponsibly (or even just <i>clumsily</i>, in your brutally unforgiving world) with a gun make one unfit for gun ownership?<br /><br />You do realize that some extraordinarily good, responsible, competent people are related to some total shitsacks, don't you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-25461637234023930392010-09-15T20:10:31.449+02:002010-09-15T20:10:31.449+02:00By "the building" I meant the family. I ...By "the building" I meant the family. I know that wasn't clear, but I was trying to do that sarcastic repeating thing I know you like so much.<br /><br />If there are shots fired in a family residence, you know I don't care if they were accidental or not, the whole family loses their guns, unless it's one of those meteorite-like rarities, a legitimate DGU. <br /><br />This is my fantasy ideal world, you understand.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-39719352829439045692010-09-15T16:05:27.437+02:002010-09-15T16:05:27.437+02:00Mikeb:WE know nothing.That's funny, coming fro...Mikeb:<br><br><i>WE know nothing.</i><br><br>That's funny, coming from the guy who can determine innocence or guilt simply by reading a news article or two (which might contradict each other).<br /><br /><i>Zorro, Yes indeed entire buildings should be subject to the one-strike-you're-out rule.</i><br><br>Anything else, Mikeb? If the building is knocked down, and a new one built on the same site, are all visitors to <i>that</i> building to be forcibly disarmed, too, or does the Constitution-free-zone end on that piece of real estate when the "convicted" building goes down?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-427620437686959072010-09-15T08:58:42.420+02:002010-09-15T08:58:42.420+02:00"as far as we know, as far as we know"
...<i>"as far as we know, as far as we know"</i><br /><br />WE know nothing.<br /><br />Zorro, Yes indeed entire buildings should be subject to the one-strike-you're-out rule.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-61243120319235706672010-09-14T20:19:55.984+02:002010-09-14T20:19:55.984+02:00So, he's a criminal, but not a violent crimina...<i>So, he's a criminal, but not a violent criminal--as far as we know.</i><br /><br />Given his secretive nature surrounding the incident, I feel we should err on the side of caution, however.RuffRidrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13597758856457029471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-8229889224776163972010-09-14T18:30:43.911+02:002010-09-14T18:30:43.911+02:00But it was okay, because MikeB didn't hurt any...But it was okay, because MikeB didn't hurt anyone--as far as we know. So, he's a criminal, but not a violent criminal--as far as we know.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-54721397385447561962010-09-14T11:52:59.118+02:002010-09-14T11:52:59.118+02:00Remember, MikeB violated gun laws for his own conv...Remember, MikeB violated gun laws for his own convenience.Weer'd Beardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13528978001340070552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-39207548073411535162010-09-14T08:20:56.326+02:002010-09-14T08:20:56.326+02:00Here's the interesting part, the part which sh...<i>Here's the interesting part, the part which shows that if they'd only had the one-strike-you're-out rule, this incident wouldn't have happened.<br /><br />[ . . . ]<br /><br />“We’ve been there in the past. In July, we were called out to a report of shots fired at the home,” but no injuries were reported, Bell added.</i><br><br>So this one-strike-and-your-rights-are-gone-forever idea of yours would apply to <i>buildings</i>, too? After all, the article gives no clue about who allegedly fired the shots in July--there's <i>certainly</i> nothing about it being either of the people in the most recent incident. Apparently, though, after an alleged "gun crime" at a given building, no guns (except those carried by "<a href="http://behindthebluewall.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Only Ones</a>," of course) would ever be allowed there again?<br /><br />Besides, "this incident wouldn't have happened"? Aren't <i>we</i> optimistic about our little decrees being followed? Even if your rule <i>does</i> mean that neither of the brothers could legally have guns, what makes you think <i>that</i> means anything?<br /><br />Like every other gun law, the one you propose would exist only for the breaking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com