http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/04...dge-rules.html


Is this judge insane or what!
--
Bod

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 6:14:50 AM UTC-4, Bod wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/04...dge-rules.html


Is this judge insane or what!
--
Bod

Well, now this is quite interesting. It shows that the problems here are
not just the gun laws and the procedures. The problem is also that we have
idiots sitting on the bench. In this case, it looks like an idiot lib
judge. The govt should appeal this decision, as high as necessary.
This is a good example. If because of the Constitution, we can't keep
a guy like this from being allowed to buy guns, then it's time to amend
the Constitution. After every mass shooting, people say, there were red
flags, yet no one did anything. Well, here is a good example. We have
the red flags. The police did their job. Yet the judge rules to allow
this guy, who's stated his propensity to commit a mass shooting, to be
able to buy all the guns he wants.

I suspect part of the problem here is that it's a case of singling one guy
out to ban him, instead of having a process like we do here where everyone
has to apply and then the police turn down the ones deemed a threat to the
public. But regardless, this needs to be fixed. If this whacko already
had a gun, the judge would have allowed him to keep it. Of course the
gun nuts will tell you it's his right and everything is perfectly OK.

For the record, in NJ we have a pretty good record of denying permits
to buy a gun from anyone that's a threat to the public.

On 03/05/2018 12:56, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 6:14:50 AM UTC-4, Bod wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/04...dge-rules.html


Is this judge insane or what!
--
Bod

Well, now this is quite interesting. It shows that the problems here are
not just the gun laws and the procedures. The problem is also that we have
idiots sitting on the bench. In this case, it looks like an idiot lib
judge. The govt should appeal this decision, as high as necessary.
This is a good example. If because of the Constitution, we can't keep
a guy like this from being allowed to buy guns, then it's time to amend
the Constitution. After every mass shooting, people say, there were red
flags, yet no one did anything. Well, here is a good example. We have
the red flags. The police did their job. Yet the judge rules to allow
this guy, who's stated his propensity to commit a mass shooting, to be
able to buy all the guns he wants.

I suspect part of the problem here is that it's a case of singling one guy
out to ban him, instead of having a process like we do here where everyone
has to apply and then the police turn down the ones deemed a threat to the
public. But regardless, this needs to be fixed. If this whacko already
had a gun, the judge would have allowed him to keep it. Of course the
gun nuts will tell you it's his right and everything is perfectly OK.

For the record, in NJ we have a pretty good record of denying permits
to buy a gun from anyone that's a threat to the public.

I'm absolutely gobsmacked why anyone would argue with the common sense
that you show.

--
Bod

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 8:42:36 AM UTC-4, Bod wrote:
On 03/05/2018 12:56, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 6:14:50 AM UTC-4, Bod wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/04...dge-rules.html


Is this judge insane or what!
--
Bod

Well, now this is quite interesting. It shows that the problems here are
not just the gun laws and the procedures. The problem is also that we have
idiots sitting on the bench. In this case, it looks like an idiot lib
judge. The govt should appeal this decision, as high as necessary.
This is a good example. If because of the Constitution, we can't keep
a guy like this from being allowed to buy guns, then it's time to amend
the Constitution. After every mass shooting, people say, there were red
flags, yet no one did anything. Well, here is a good example. We have
the red flags. The police did their job. Yet the judge rules to allow
this guy, who's stated his propensity to commit a mass shooting, to be
able to buy all the guns he wants.

I suspect part of the problem here is that it's a case of singling one guy
out to ban him, instead of having a process like we do here where everyone
has to apply and then the police turn down the ones deemed a threat to the
public. But regardless, this needs to be fixed. If this whacko already
had a gun, the judge would have allowed him to keep it. Of course the
gun nuts will tell you it's his right and everything is perfectly OK.

For the record, in NJ we have a pretty good record of denying permits
to buy a gun from anyone that's a threat to the public.

I'm absolutely gobsmacked why anyone would argue with the common sense
that you show.

--
Bod

I'm sure shortly you'll have lots of replies explaining why I'm totally wrong
and in favor of "draconian" solutions. And thank you for the compliment.

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 5:14:50 AM UTC-5, Bod wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/04...dge-rules.html

Is this judge insane or what!
--
Bod

There could be the fact that the fellow has very bad taste in the people he admires but hasn't threatened anyone. If the idiot made any threats of violence, by all means, prevent him from obtaining firearms. I know people who admire Hitler and hate Jews but they've never threatened to harm anyone. I believe Democrats/Commiecrats should be sterilized so they can't reproduce but I'm certainly not going to go around slicing their winkies off. There is "Freedom of speech and thought" in The United States no matter how vile it may be. People here don't have a right to make threats on your life or well being. I'm sure there are those who want a Thought Police depriving people of their rights and freedom. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Thoughtless Monster