2a3688e8
XPost: alt.society.liberalism, talk.politics.guns
From: kurtnicklas@gmail.com
On Feb 21, 8:13 pm, Matt wrote:
> RD Sandman wrote innews:XnsA16
7E07F732hopewell@216.196.121.131:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Matt wrote in
> >news: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
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
