6cabc5df
XPost: alt.society.liberalism, talk.politics.guns
From: kurtnicklas@gmail.com
On Feb 21, 3:23 pm, RD Sandman wrote:
> Matt wrote innews:kg5tmv$qq8$1@dont-email.me:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Very likely, but his parents didn't follow up on the letter they received
> from Pima College about his expulsion and that he would not be allowed
> back on camupus until he had been examined by mental health professionals
> and certified to be no danger to himself or others. Both PSO and TPD
> were aware of him, but did nothing. Ergo, no exam....no entry into
> NICS...pass a background check.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> 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?
>
> Because gun ownership is a right. You folks scream murder over a simple
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
