The recent threads in the old forum contain numerous jubilant posts about how many background checks for firearms purchases have been completed recently, and how many applications for permits to carry concealed firearms have been submitted recently.
(I'm not finding one thread I'm thinking of, but someone asked what all this jubilation was about. The replies were to the effect of how glorious it was to see so many people exercising their rights. I always think that's funny, myself. I've never had that reaction when I read statistics about numbers of abortions performed, even though they represent exercises of the most fundamental rights; I don't get all gleeful when I see people exercising their right of free speech to tell lies to the public or vilify vulnerable minorities or portray abuses of women; and I've never jumped for joy when I read of someone exercising their right to end their life. But whatever.)
From what I can tell, the individual who committed this crime was not disqualified from possessing firearms.
What can I conclude from this?
Well, I'd say: "you guys want him to carry in public" is what I can conclude from it. Should I be concluding something else, and if so, why, exactly?
I don't know what that last bit of your post is about. Just another tacky bit of personal commentary based on nothing, I expect.
A propos of nothing in the post to which I am replying, and just because the OP brought it to mind:
?size=l
Posers with guns ... That's Kimveer Gill, who took his pieces to Dawson College in Montreal a few years ago and only managed to kill one person (although he did seriously injure a few others). Quite the resemblance. Of course, he wouldn't actually have been able to buy one of the other guy's weapons, or the big mag, much, I am sure, to his chagrin.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read