Article: GOP DEBATE: JEB BUSH SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA-STYLE GUN CONFISCATION LAWS

"He not only supports it, 'but that we need to encourage that kind of involvement.'"

Being a traitor to this nation and our Constitution must run in the family. As Crackpot pointed out, he is completely irrelevant, but that's just one more reason to try to prevent him from being nominated for anything.
 
There was some GOP hack on the radio this morning bending over backwards to defend Bush, both his performance in the debate and his standing in the race. The same "strategist" put Trump more or less last in the debate, despite other sources reporting him as having one of the best performances. I think the republican party's views and preferences are pretty evident. And retarded.
 
People will never accept that crazy people are free too UNTIL (not BEFORE) they commit a crime. A claim that someone is "disturbed" is not justified, but someone making a material, criminal threat is, by definition, committing a crime, and the victim has a right to legal recourse.
 
He is irrelevant. He can believe in unicorns and he is not getting the nomination.

I really don't get why he is running, He barely has a pulse. Other than his family name, he'd be in the same breathe as pataki right now. He just the type that would be a mayor in a very quiet, safe, economically great city. Just a competent manager type.

He's going no where, last night did nothing to slow his collapse. But for his $45 mill in the campaign account, he would be with rick perry now. One respected conservative site this morning suggested he's toast and will drop out after losing in NH. I think that is likely.

IA is a very conservative, especially socially, primary state. bush isn't even trying there as he no he has no chance to be top 4 or 5. He really needs NH as it's more moderate in the primary and he has roots from his parents place in ME, going to prep school here, etc. Then there is south carolina, again very conservative.

Other than NH, where does jeb catch fire? He doesn't and once he has a few loses, the crash will accellerate.
 
I'm no Bush fan, but he specifically said " there needs to be a hearing". How is that unreasonable? He didn't say take all their guns and then maybe in X years, and XX appearances in court he can have them back after.

Lets say you see you're neighbor of 15 years mental health start to deteriorate for one reason or another. You're friends with the guy, you've been to the shooting range with him for many years, your kids grew up together, but he's started acting... strange. Maybe one day he does or says something that makes you think he's going to hurt himself or others. Shouldn't there be a way to get that guy in front of a doctor and a judge to determine if he IS going to do something dangerous? That's pretty much the exact scenario of the guy that killed those two people on live TV. BUT that doesn't mean the cops show up on the dude's door step and take all his guns without a hearing. Because we all know their are fraudulent reports by people with a grudge.

As responsible gun owners we need to find common ground to deal with the mental health issues that have caused some of the recent shootings carried out by people who PASSED background checks and bought their guns LEGALLY.

I don't trust the gov't setting a standard like that to take peoples rights. Look at MA. The chiefs have the absolute power to deny an LTC for any reason they want. No thanks.
 
This is essentially the GOP's election to lose.

IF an establishment candidate gets the nomination, be prepared to say President Sanders or President Clinton come 2016.
 
This is essentially the GOP's election to lose.

And they will. Whoever the GOP winds up handing the nomination to (note I didn't say whoever wins the nomination), is going to get their asses kicked by Hillary. She has so much filth on her, but the media and the socialists are in lock step on their intent to get her elected. We are done. The GOP hasn't even tried to rein in any of the nitwits currently running and try to produce two or three candidates who are actually viable and electable. Instead we have a dozen or so candidates who look like children squabbling on national television.
 
if they make the claim I don't care how sane the person is at the hearing the judge will take the guns. They won;t take a chance so someone can say, "oh, there was a hearing and you didn't take his guns".

If this happensd and there is a hearing the guns will be gone...no judge would not order them to be taken if it got that far. So this is BS.

Bye Jeb. No presidential nomination for you.
 
Last edited:
How wouls this have been stopped?
Should we all have to sit down with a shrink before we purchase a gun?
 
So the guy that everyone thinks is crazy and is going to hurt someone, passes a background check, buys a gun legally, and then kills two people on TV. Because there is no system to identify and evaluate crazy people. Everyone here is ok with that?

We're not talking about a gang banger buying an illegal gun, this dude when through all the same checks you all go through when you buy a gun. Again, you're all ok with that?

The potential for abuse is off the charts. What happens when your moonbat neighbor who saw you put a rifle case in the back of your car suddenly decides that the Trump 2016 sticker you just put on your car is a clear sign that you've lost your mind?

There isn't a statutory solution to every problem in the world, despite that some would have us believe otherwise.
 
Last edited:
So the guy that everyone thinks is crazy and is going to hurt someone, passes a background check, buys a gun legally, and then kills two people on TV. Because there is no system to identify and evaluate crazy people. Everyone here is ok with that?

We're not talking about a gang banger buying an illegal gun, this dude when through all the same checks you all go through when you buy a gun. Again, you're all ok with that?
OK with what? That 2 people were murdered? No. That the victims were apparently unarmed and unaware? No. That the murderer killed himself last instead of first? No.

If you mean am I OK with the fact that someone with no felony criminal record, and no current professionally and legally documented record of mental instability rendering them a clear threat to others was able to buy a gun, then the answer is Yes. If you mean, that someone was not prevented from buying a gun because someone else was offended by something they said, then Yes. If you mean that I, or anyone else, can exercise a fundamental right without first having to defend oneself from unsubstantiated fears and allegations, then Yes.

Bottom line is background checks don't really work and at best provide a false sense of security. The idea that all crimes can be prevented proactively is at best pollyannish, and at worst, a recipe for progressive fascist societal oppression.

p.s. I can just see this turning into YAOYT
 
As if we needed another reason not to vote for Jeb. He was one of the least compelling candidates on the stage. I kinda liked Ben Carson until last night, he just doesn't have enough oomph in his game (I have no idea on most of his positions). Fiorina was pretty strong, Trump is a joke.
At this point I have no one to vote for yet.
 
As Robjax pointed out, no Judge will take the chance on your not doing something .

Bill%2BBrocius.jpg
 
I am not a Jeb. supporter, and I could see all the anxieties about Jeb's comment, or any candidate's comment about a certain issue. As

Should we win the war or a battle?

Would we be in a better place (less probability of tighter gun control, etc) if Hillary Clinton or a democrat wins if we do not unify together to nominate a winning candidate?
 
I am not a Jeb. supporter, and I could see all the anxieties about Jeb's comment, or any candidate's comment about a certain issue. As

Should we win the war or a battle?

Would we be in a better place (less probability of tighter gun control, etc) if Hillary Clinton or a democrat wins if we do not unify together to nominate a winning candidate?
That's what the campaigning, primary, and convention process is all about, and we are still very, very early in it. Anointing anyone now is IMNSHO way too soon.
 
I'm no Bush fan, but he specifically said " there needs to be a hearing". How is that unreasonable? He didn't say take all their guns and then maybe in X years, and XX appearances in court he can have them back after.

Lets say you see you're neighbor of 15 years mental health start to deteriorate for one reason or another. You're friends with the guy, you've been to the shooting range with him for many years, your kids grew up together, but he's started acting... strange. Maybe one day he does or says something that makes you think he's going to hurt himself or others. Shouldn't there be a way to get that guy in front of a doctor and a judge to determine if he IS going to do something dangerous? That's pretty much the exact scenario of the guy that killed those two people on live TV. BUT that doesn't mean the cops show up on the dude's door step and take all his guns without a hearing. Because we all know their are fraudulent reports by people with a grudge.

As responsible gun owners we need to find common ground to deal with the mental health issues that have caused some of the recent shootings carried out by people who PASSED background checks and bought their guns LEGALLY.

You don't give government power and hope it only uses it for good. Why? BECAUSE THAT NEVER HAPPENS.

I'll take the risk of dealing with a crazy person, over the government having the authority to have a gang point guns at me, steal me property and kidnap me all on other peoples word that I'm "crazy".

What you're asking for is exactly the system MA has, and it's terrible. I'm a Vermont kind of guy.
 
So the guy that everyone thinks is crazy and is going to hurt someone, passes a background check, buys a gun legally, and then kills two people on TV. Because there is no system to identify and evaluate crazy people. Everyone here is ok with that?

We're not talking about a gang banger buying an illegal gun, this dude when through all the same checks you all go through when you buy a gun. Again, you're all ok with that?

I'm OK with that.
 
So the guy that everyone thinks is crazy and is going to hurt someone, passes a background check, buys a gun legally, and then kills two people on TV. Because there is no system to identify and evaluate crazy people. Everyone here is ok with that?

We're not talking about a gang banger buying an illegal gun, this dude when through all the same checks you all go through when you buy a gun. Again, you're all ok with that?

If a doctor thinks he's dangerous then he'll be committed. If you are free with no history of crime or having been committed for mental illness, you can buy a gun. How can anyone not be ok with that? That "everyone thinks" something is a crock of shit.
 
the biggest problem facing advocates for these mental health related restrictions (or takings away of constitutional rights and freedoms) is that there is currently no considerations being made in any of these laws for a guaranteed path back to the full restoration of your rights. So you go to the Dr. and get treated, and now you are better, maybe have to take some pills or what not, but when does the law declare you whole again? Answer: NEVER!!!!! These laws restrict people forever. Also right now Govt may draw the line at only people who have been committed, but what about future despotic govt leaders? Can they move that line to people who have ever told their Dr. they were feeling depressed or angry? What about if they decide anyone who has ever seen a shrink? Or what about anyone taking any kind of psychotropic medication? The potential for abuse and slippery slope here is tremendous.

That's why I am no advocate for govt to be involved in making judgements either way. As previous commenters stated:

This a million times:
You don't give government power and hope it only uses it for good. Why? BECAUSE THAT NEVER HAPPENS.

I'll take the risk of dealing with a crazy person, over the government having the authority to have a gang point guns at me, steal me property and kidnap me all on other peoples word that I'm "crazy".
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom