XPost: alt.society.liberalism, talk.politics.guns
From: matttelles@sprynet.com
RD Sandman wrote in
news:XnsA16E7331E2840hopewell@216.196.121.131:
> Matt wrote in
> news:XnsA16DBCA8FAA31matttellessprynetcom@78.46.70.116:
>
>> RD Sandman wrote in
>> news:XnsA16DAFF8BD9A9hopewell@216.196.121.131:
>>
>>> Matt wrote in
>>> news:XnsA16DA5D904B7Cmatttellessprynetcom@78.46.70.116:
>>>
>>>> RD Sandman wrote in
>>>> news:XnsA16D736B64DBhopewell@216.196.121.131:
>>>>
>>>>> Matt wrote in
>>>>> news:kg377t$8kt$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>
>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote in
>>>>>> news:XnsA16D4819EC12Ehopewell@216.196.121.131:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Matt wrote in
>>>>>>> news:XnsA16CBFCC1AAE4matttellessprynetcom@78.46.70.116:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:XnsA16CAC542BDE7hopewell@216.196.121.131:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Oglethorpe" wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:r_mdncktGtcnirnMnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@mchsi.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Matt" wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:XnsA16BB13437A9Amatttellessprynetcom@78.46.70.116...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If someone goes to a surrounding state to avoid the laws in
>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>> state of residence, they cannot LEGALLY purchase a firearm
>> The
>>>>>>>>>>> reason a dealer asks for a driver's license photo ID is to
>> check
>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>> the purchaser is a resident of the state. If not, then an
>> FFL
>>>>>> (by
>>>>>>>>>>> federal law) must be involved from the purchaser's home
>>>>>>>>>>> state.
>>>>>> That
>>>>>>>>>>> FFL will run a background check on the purchaser and ensure
>> that
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> transaction meets all applicable laws in the state of
>> residence.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Right. Like Laughner, right?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ===
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You can't even spell his name right. So why should we care
>>>>>>>>>> what you "think"? Loughner is a left fringer nutcase who
>>>>>>>>>> passed the NICS. He shot Giffords because she is a blue dogh
>>>>>>>>>> Democrat and isn't left fringer enough to suit him.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Loughner was apolitical. He was not a member of the left or
of
>>>>>>>>> the right. Don't be like our local sheriff Dupnik who tried
to
>>>>>>>>> paint
>>>>>> him
>>>>>>>>> as a Tea Partier.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He also passed NICS because he had not been examined by mental
>>>>>> health
>>>>>>>>> professionals although he had been expelled from the Pima
>> College
>>>>>>>>> campus for scaring his classmates and other infractions (none
>>>>>>>>> involving a gun). His parents did nothing about the letter
>>>>>>>>> they received from the college and neither did the PCSO or TPD
>> although
>>>>>>>>> both departments were aware of him from some of his
activities.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which brings up an interesting point, RD. Would you back a law
>>>>>>>> which required you to have a mental health examination by an
>>>>>>>> independent
>>>>>>> group
>>>>>>>> before a gun could be sold to you? And to have that exam
>>>>>>>> repeated on some reasonable basis?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope. I already back laws that allow you to be involuntarily
>>>>>> committed
>>>>>>> for observation *IF* you display outward signs of mental
>> impairment.
>>>>>>> Loughner, Holmes, Cho and Lanza all did.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And yet, one of the biggest problems is that most do NOT display
>> any
>>>>>> sort of outward sign. Or, if you prefer, you cannot always judge
a
>>>>>> book by its cover.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Loughner, et al, already committed their crimes. How many more
>>>>>> folk out there are going to?
>>>>>
>>>>> Loughner displayed many signs of mental imbalance BEFORE he went
>> off.
>>>>> As did Cho and Lanza. I assume Holmes did also since he was being
>>>>> seen by a shrink.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Loughner did. But, really, RD, how many times do you read "He was
>> such
>>> a
>>>> nice young man, never did anyone any harm?" just before they go
off?
>>>
>>> Not about Loughner you didn't. His classmates were afraid of him
and
>>> some even petitioned to be reassigned to different classes.
>>
>> And he had a gun. Several guns.
>
> NO, he didn't. He had ONE gun. Bought it, legally, for reasons
> explained above, in October, 2010. You should have read them. He had
> been kicked off campus for mental issues in August of 2010. Shooting
was
> in January 2011.
Fine, he had a gun. And he bought it legally. A mental checkup would
have stopped this, or would have had him put away where he couldn't hurt
anyone afterward.
>
>>>> I don't think a mental exam is in any way infringement, and will
>> likely
>>>> catch a lot of these nutcases that slip through "loopholes".
>>>
>>> Let's start with you, Matt. After all, you are innocent aren't you?
>> Of
>>> course, you didn't know how many people were killed by guns in
>>> Hawaii. Your posted claim was one. Guess what the real number
>>> was......
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Fine with me, I'm happy to undergo testing when I buy a gun. Now, how
>> about you?
>
> No need for it.
Wouldn't that be what all insane people say, though? Not saying you are,
just saying that you are the worst possible judge of your own sanity
(and so am I for mine, for that matter).
Why is this such a terrible idea?
Matt
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
