|
Post by gwiz on Jan 10, 2011 12:30:11 GMT -4
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 10, 2011 12:36:05 GMT -4
Alright. The next question is, if he couldn't have obtained it legally (if gun control laws were more strict), would that have stopped him from finding an illegal firearm or otherwise attempting violence?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 10, 2011 12:50:09 GMT -4
I know the US Constitution has its amendment providing people with the right to bear arms, but I understood this was supposed to be in the context of a well regulated militia protecting the state. How does this man's possession of a firearm in any way represent a well regulated militia protecting the state? You should probably read some of the latest Supreme Court rulings on Second Ammendment cases, especially District of Columbia v. Heller which states, among other things: "(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. "(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause (the one about militias) announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 10, 2011 13:35:31 GMT -4
Alright. The next question is, if he couldn't have obtained it legally (if gun control laws were more strict), would that have stopped him from finding an illegal firearm or otherwise attempting violence? It would certainly have made things more difficult for him. Are you really happy with the number of gun deaths (both accidental and intended) in the USA compared with other western democracies? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jan 10, 2011 14:04:03 GMT -4
Perhaps a better comparison is to look at the violent death rates, not just the gun deaths: International Violent Death RatesI would rather us look into relaxing drug laws rather than making government even more intrusive. We had a similar problem during the Prohibition era when liquor was outlawed.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 10, 2011 14:19:18 GMT -4
It would certainly have made things more difficult for him. Maybe. No, but I am quite happy that I personally can own and use a firearm responsibly to defend my home and family.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 10, 2011 16:55:53 GMT -4
I'm just appalled that it's possible for a person with apparently quite clear mental problems to obtain a firearm. I know the US Constitution has its amendment providing people with the right to bear arms, but I understood this was supposed to be in the context of a well regulated militia protecting the state. How does this man's possession of a firearm in any way represent a well regulated militia protecting the state? Denying someone their constitutional rights on mental grounds is a legal process and no one should have to prove that she is mentally competent before exercising those constitutional rights. Believing weird things is not grounds for legally declaring someone mentally unfit. It is very difficult to declare someone legally insane, as it should be. As far as the "well regulated militia" issue, there are varying interpretations on what this means, mostly because the meaning is vague. Under such circumstances of vague meanings, it is best to take the approach that the rights in question belong to the individual, not the government.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 10, 2011 19:44:28 GMT -4
Perhaps a better comparison is to look at the violent death rates, not just the gun deaths: International Violent Death RatesI would rather us look into relaxing drug laws rather than making government even more intrusive. We had a similar problem during the Prohibition era when liquor was outlawed. I was surprised to see that 29% of Canadian households have guns! I know a couple of people who hunt, but that's about it. On the other hands a lot of farmers have a rifle to shoot varmints with.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jan 10, 2011 21:54:25 GMT -4
...a lot of farmers have a rifle to shoot varmints with. varmint n informal an irritating or obnoxious person or animal -- Collins English Dictionary, Tenth Edition, 2009 I get it: Hoax-believers!
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jan 10, 2011 22:06:55 GMT -4
I've seen people link him to an account on the AboveTopSecret forums, not sure if he was on the David Icke forums. Above Top Secret has provided a link to the posts they believe are by the gunman. Wow. This guy was "out there" even for the ATS crowd. (Disclaimer: I post as "Saint Exupery" on ATS.)
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jan 10, 2011 22:14:46 GMT -4
It would certainly have made things more difficult for him. Maybe. No, but I am quite happy that I personally can own and use a firearm responsibly to defend my home and family. Considering that shooting someone in the head is against the law, I really don't see how a law against gun ownership is going to deter a motivated nutcase from committing deadly assaults. Box-cutters, anyone?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 10, 2011 22:49:43 GMT -4
Apparently, judging from his internet ranting, the man is an atheist, cites the Communist Manifesto and Mien Kampf as favorite books, is anti-flag, believed 9/11 was a government conspiracy, and hates George Bush. He doesn't sound much like a Tea Partier or Palin cheerleader to me. Well, he attacked someone who is a Democrat, who had her office vandalized during the health care reform debate, and who was "targeted" by Sarah Palin. So is it unreasonable to suspect that the gunman is a conservative? I think the Tea Party and Republicans got lucky when it turned out it wasn't one of their supporters behind this attack. Will they continue to fan the flames with their rhetoric until their luck runs out? Joyce Kaufman (Conservative Radio host, Tea Party supporter)"I am convinced that the most important thing the founding fathers did to ensure me my First Amendment rights was they gave me a Second Amendment. And if ballots don’t work, bullets will." Sharron Angle (Tea Party / Republican)"I feel that the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for our citizenry. This not for someone who's in the military. This not for law enforcement. This is for us. And in fact when you read that Constitution and the founding fathers, they intended this to stop tyranny. This is for us when our government becomes tyrannical..."
"Well it's to defend ourselves. And you know, I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems." Saying the Obama administration is tyrannical is ridiculous. If the worst thing Obama has done is give people free health care then you've got nothing to complain about (certainly not enough to justify overthrowing the government through violence).
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jan 10, 2011 22:54:19 GMT -4
Considering that shooting someone in the head is against the law, I really don't see how a law against gun ownership is going to deter a motivated nutcase from committing deadly assaults. If he'd gotten treatment for his mental health issues, that might have deterred him. His college knew he needed help and told his parents to get him a mental health evaluation. He was living with his parents; I wonder if they tried to get treatment for him. If not, I have to ask why they didn't.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jan 11, 2011 0:04:35 GMT -4
Well, he attacked someone who is a Democrat, who had her office vandalized during the health care reform debate, and who was "targeted" by Sarah Palin. So is it unreasonable to suspect that the gunman is a conservative? Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, now Kaufman and Angle. As for myself, I am going to go out on a limb and blame the actual gunman. Didn't they say pretty much the same thing after Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, and James Earl Ray?
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jan 11, 2011 0:20:10 GMT -4
Considering that shooting someone in the head is against the law, I really don't see how a law against gun ownership is going to deter a motivated nutcase from committing deadly assaults. If he'd gotten treatment for his mental health issues, that might have deterred him. His college knew he needed help and told his parents to get him a mental health evaluation. He was living with his parents; I wonder if they tried to get treatment for him. If not, I have to ask why they didn't. Agreed. This has strong similarities to the Virginia Tech shooting. The signs were there, and people recognized the potential danger, but the law is fuzzy when it comes to potential threats.
|
|