Texas Mass Murderer Was Deported THREE Times

I think that FatBack's telling you to research the matter, translates to mean that he doesn't know, either.

 

Let me get this straight: an employer runs a check on an ID. The ID, which is stolen, comes back clean and the employer gets burned? Really?

 

Do you have some information that we are lacking that says that he legally bought the gun?

 

I'm not certain. I had thought I'd heard that, but there've been so many shootings lately, I could well be overlapping two different instances. In a cursory check, now, I do not see that information.

 

The government won't enforce the gun laws that are on the books, now. WTH do we need new gun laws for?

Oropesa didn't "legally buy" a gun... LMAO.

 

You want more gun laws, but you don't even understand our current gun laws... LMAO

 

OK, if you say so, I certainly don't need a link, to confirm your accuracy... Laughing My Ass Off.

 

Oropesa did not legally buy, possess, or otherwise associate himself in the presence of a firearm.

 

It's illegal for an illegal alien to buy, or even possess a firearm in The United States. That...is...a...fact...lol

 

Straw man argument. The issue here, and the one being raised in both state and national politics, is specifically about banning the AR-15, and similar weapons. What do other laws, have to do with that?

In 2003, the AR-15 represented 2% of gun sales-- now it's 25%. And it is marketed as a weapon of war.

And the vast majority of mass shooters, choose to use this particular weapon (or a clone). In fact, this Texas shooter, had not been using his AR-15, out in his yard, when the neighbor asked him to cool it: he went back into his house to get that specific gun, to use to slaughter the family, next door to him.

 

You're the one that thinks Oropesa legally bought a firearm inside the The United States...lol.

Then, you said we needed more gun laws to prevent illegal aliens from buying guns. It's already illegal for illegal aliens to buy guns in The United States.

 

Laws are sometimes broken, or not enforced. That, also...IS...A...FACT.

 

That's right. Let's enforce the laws already on the books.

What do you want? Make it double illegal for illegal aliens to buy guns?... LMAO

 

You are inaccurately portraying my comments.
First, I indicated that I was not sure, how the shooter had obtained his weapon. Second, I never suggested any regulations, specifically "to prevent illegal aliens from buying guns." Maybe you are thinking of another poster; or maybe you're just making things up-- which I don't think would shock anyone.

 

neither of those things effect the black market. the black market is only effected by the demand of criminals. So the question becomes- how do you make criminals want guns less?

 

Re-read this reply, addressed to you, just a couple of posts back. It will answer your question, while also showing why your assumptions, in the current post, are wrong.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ted-three-times.610187/page-3#post-1074187521

 

I didn't inaccurately portray a damn thing...lol...

You literally stated that Oropesa "legally bought" a gun.

 

In this post,

you complain that constitutionalists don't want new anti-gun laws... LMAO

 

lol...lol...lol-- does this constitute "making an argument," in your language?

YES, your post was riddled with errors. Just look at my quotes, you had used...Oh, that's right-- you hadn't supplied any post of mine, to back up your fake news interpretation.

Due to my past experience, in similar situations with you, I won't even bother to suggest what any person who could defend the accuracy of his post, would know to do.

 

Nice try... LMAO. I quoted you and everyone sees the error in your comments.

 

WTF are you talking about? I had replied--

DEFinning said: ↑
You are inaccurately portraying my comments. I never suggested any regulations, specifically "to prevent illegal aliens from buying guns." Maybe you are thinking of another poster; or maybe you're just making things up-- which I don't think would shock anyone.

-- to the following post, of yours:


Wild Bill Kelsoe said: ↑
You're the one that thinks Oropesa legally bought a firearm inside the The United States...lol.

Then, you said we needed more gun laws to prevent illegal aliens from buying guns. It's already illegal for illegal aliens to buy guns in The United States.
<End>

FYI, what you just posted to "prove yourself right," included no quote of me, even saying anything about "illegal aliens," much less, calling for a gun law, targeted especially towards them.

And as I have already told you once-- so why should we believe, your hearing this ten more times, would get through to you?-- I'd expressed the belief about the purchase, as my not being certain of it.

DEFinning said: ↑
None of which, gets to the heart of the matter: despite being probably in the country illegally, the man was able to legally buy the guns-- or am I under a mistaken impression? If this is as I've just stated, what does that tell you, about Texas gun laws?


DEFinning said: ↑
I'm not certain. I had thought I'd heard that, but there've been so many shootings lately, I could well be overlapping two different instances. In a cursory check, now, I do not see that information.


P.S.-- End of Reading Lesson. If you are still confused, you will need to find help, elsewhere.

 

"Mass shooters" are only responsible for about 12% of total gun homicide deaths.

And probably in most of those cases more gun restrictions would not have prevented those deaths, or might only have reduced the death toll down from 4 to 2 or 3, for example. (Unless you were talking about a complete gun ban, which most gun control proponents claim to deny they want to do)

Even if you passed very stringent gun regulations and restrictions, like totally banning semi-automatic rifles, I think you'd only be talking about saving 1500 to 2000 lives, which is not that big in the scheme of things. For comparison, twenty-five times that number die from pancreatic cancer (a very specific cancer).

 

And ypu think that sentence is logical?

 

If there was a failure of enforcement, you understand, it would certainly fall under what had been the State of Texas's responsibility, not the federal government's.


And please stop with the word games. When I'd asked if he'd purchased the gun "legally," that meant through a legal conduit, such as a gun store, as opposed to on the black market. If your only point is that, however he got it, it would be illegal, that has really no practical effect on the situation, so is a meaningless addition to your argument.

 

how could he have bought it at a gun shop?