Posted on 01/25/2011 10:55:58 AM PST by Free ThinkerNY
I agree, and would add this: getting murdered by a psychotic, disaffected nutcase is something akin to getting conked on the head by a meteorite; namely, if it's going to happen, it's going to happen, and there's no point in worrying yourself to death about it.
***He has endured significant trauma, and is emotionally compromised ... and understandably so.****
Emotionally compromised so bad tha ONLY millions of citizens loosing their rights can cure him!
I wish he hadn’t passed the background check, but on what grounds would have he been denied under the current, or any future check?
He had no adjudicated reason to be denied.
Instead, we need to talk about how we handle (serially) threatening, violent or mentally ill people when they become know to “the system”. There were plenty of opportunities to get this guy registered and legally prohibited from buying a firearm. Not that it would have stopped him.
He’s wrong, but I don’t doubt his motives.
Many people who endure traumatic events go on crusades to try to prevent such things from ever happening again — John Walsh, for instance. Some do good ... some just become overly obtrusive.
His emotions are likely running him at this point, but I think he’s probably trying to do right by the Congresswoman. He’s wrong ... but his position is understandable given what he endured. Its only a problem if people give it too much weight.
SnakeDoc
I agree with your sentiments - but also find it hard to reconcile that with the idea that a convicted murderer out on parole would legally be able to buy a gun. Of course it is probably easier and cheaper for him just to buy a gun off the street, so the background checks are only for the lawful citizens - even if they do go against the 2nd Amendment. (”What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ don’t you understand?”)
(Not sure why murderers are ever let loose anyway, but that’s another topic!)
So yes, I just argued myself out of my own thinking of “well, there should be SOME controls to keep criminals from buying guns”. (And will probably argue myself the other way again too at some point!)
Maybe for the pysch evaluation the gun shop can show that “Rohrsc” test inkblot or whatever it is called. If the buyer sees a butterfly or a bunny they can buy a gun. If they see anything else they are denied, and a call to the authorities is made.
Seems everyone involved with the deterioration of this young man need to rethink their own responsibility.
Parents, college, and anyone else who interacted with him. Dipstick comes to mind.
He had some minor juvenile arrests, IIRC. Those records should have been flagged when he was ordered to have a psych exam before returning to college.
Too many people knew he was crazed.
If I was a college professor, my #1 concern would be the performance of my job in safety. SO, they kicked his ass out. Should they have gone further? I’m sure they are asking themsevles that question right now.
However, the only people with a legal “duty to care” were the cops, including Sheriff Dipstick. THOSE are the people that need to reevaluate themselves and be reevaluated by the voters and their employers.
Why are the liberals too moronic to figure that out?
My cousin is a trauma surgeon and said what Daniel Hernandez did for Giffords was inconsequential to her survival, and is puzzled by why he is being lauded as a hero. He is apolitical, so I explained to him that Hernandez is Hispanic AND homosexual, and therefore fits the profile that the MSM wants to celebrate. Meanwhile Judge John Roll, who saved a man’s life by pushing him out of the way and taking the fatal bullets for himself - is totally ignored by the MSM because he was a white Republican.
I don’t listen to people who don’t have real jobs.
The problem with Loughner was that, even though he'd had several run ins with the law, none of the charges ever stuck, likely because of his parents being connected to the town management, so his mentally ill self was able to get a gun.
I agree too. I would like to add that if we take back our GOD GIVEN right stated in the 2nd Amendment we all might have a chance against that nutcase, unlike the meteorite.
Actually, if he had been treated correctly by the local Sherriff, I’m not sure he would have passed his check.
BUT - Some of the changes that have been proposed to the background check system essentially allow for anonymous or frivolous allegations of mental illness to be used to disqualify a potential gun buyer. Things like “is a conservative” could become grounds for losing an inalienable right.
Juvenile records are typically sealed after age 18.
Remember that any restrictions that are placed to prevent a psycho from obtaining a weapon also work against Joe law-abiding Citizen, expecially when there are political axes to grind.
“Shall not be infringed” has a pretty specific meaning.
LOL! BTW it's a Rorscach test. ;o)
My God. I can't believe it. I'm not defending Loughner or anyone, but government has no legitimate business licensing ANYBODY to keep and bear firearms.
I go on record right here and right now saying that the "prohibited person" category is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and maybe the whole Brady background check. The state can take someone's right away to carry a gun WHEN THEY COMMIT A CRIME, and after due process, and not before. Anything else is an encroachment to freedom.
Good idea. Let's use it to check voters, too....
Oh, good grief! Some dumbass sheriff neglects to notice a well-documented lunatic and the gun control nazis want to use a 20-year-old as an expert and turn this into a Brady moment? Sue the sheriff instead...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.