Preventing crimes like the Arizona Massacre

[Guest]

I think it is time to put our cards on the table.
The Problem:
A mentally ill man bought a gun legally and passed an FBI check. He murdered 6 people, and seriously injured 14 more.
How could this have been prevented?
He was mentally ill and many people apparently knew about it. He should have been hospitalized, simple as that. Apparently many people were aware of his condition and did nothing about it. That is the mistake that was made.

Constructive solution:
We have mandatory reporting laws on child abuse. Maybe we should have the same reporting for mentally ill people, instead of privacy laws, so that the schools, the military, and other officials would have been required to report him to authorities so they could have had him evaluated and hospitalized.
Once hospitalized he should not be released until we are CERTAIN he is not a danger to himself or others.

Not the solution:
Gun Control: I have personally dealt with cases where mentally ill people seriously injured and killed innocent people with knives, bats, and their bare hands.

Blame the political discourse:
The sheriff in Arizona is blaming the vitreal political speech. When he has been asked yesterday and today what proof he has that speech had anything to do with this crime he admits he has NO PROOF.
We have a constitutional right to free speech. I have no problems with the current restrictions on speech because they do not restrict just speech but prohibit crime committed through speech that is INTENDED to harm. Just like we have a right to bear arms, we have no right to shoot people without justification.
Who's free speech do we restrict, who decides, and how do we define the restrictions so people know what they can and cannot say, and what punishment do you suffer if you say "the wrong thing"?
People are responsible for their own actions.
If we go down this road there are thousands of people on both sides of politics that we will have to arrest. God help us.

[Guest]

I'm sorry...I can not agree with the "mentally ill" theory. To me he was a cold calculated killer. He thought it out and carried it out!!! Plain and simple.

He should get a death sentence after all that's what he sentenced his victim to. No ands, buts or if about it.

[Guest]

I'm sorry...I can not agree with the "mentally ill" theory. To me he was a cold calculated killer. He thought it out and carried it out!!! Plain and simple.

He should get a death sentence after all that's what he sentenced his victim to. No ands, buts or if about it.

I am not saying he was legally insane. That is a far different and stricter standard than mentally ill.
I am saying he could have been easily identified as mentally ill before this happened and hospitalized to prevent this massacre. That is my goal: that something can be learned from this to prevent crimes in the future.

Do you really believe he was not mentally ill? Even the sheriff and the other law enforcement people admit that.

[Guest]

No I do not think he was mentally ill at all, and I can't go along with the "profiling" that he was mentally ill by the sheriff or law enforcement. The shame of it all is when he goes to trial, that will be his lawyers defense.

I really think that if the death sentence was carried out more often, we would not have all these killings.

I'm not saying "Death" unless it is absolutely positive WITHOUT A DOUBT!!
DNA, eyewitness, finger prints, gun residue .. the whole 9 yards.

Only when the judicial systems gets tough will things change in this country.

[Guest]

No I do not think he was mentally ill at all, and I can't go along with the "profiling" that he was mentally ill by the sheriff or law enforcement. The shame of it all is when he goes to trial, that will be his lawyers defense.

I really think that if the death sentence was carried out more often, we would not have all these killings.

I'm not saying "Death" unless it is absolutely positive WITHOUT A DOUBT!!
DNA, eyewitness, finger prints, gun residue .. the whole 9 yards.

Only when the judicial systems gets tough will things change in this country.

The Insanity defense generically involves usually the defendant proving that he has a mental illness that prevents him from knowing right from wrong, and even if he knows right from wrong, he must have the ability to conform his behavior to the law.
I had a relative who was clearly mentally ill. Do you seriously want to put people to death who are so mentally ill who are insane? I do not.

I used the defense twice when I was a defense attorney and won both times. Both clients where clearly insane. The Courts RARELY find people insane who are not. Both defendants were hospitalized. One was released after years of hospitalization and the other is still hospitalized.

Some say we should find people GUILTY by reason of insanity. That should be inconsequential distinction between Not Guilty by reason of insanity. In both cases the person did the crime but are not PUNISHED because they were insane at the time and they are hospitalized until it is JUDICIALLY determined they MUST be released.

From what I can tell in this case thus far the shooter was mentally ill but not Insane. The facts thus far indicate he knew right from wrong and could have conformed his behavior but did not because he had decided to act against a government official, and she was the one he had access to.
This of course is based on media reports thus far and there is far more information to be found and known.

We need to focus on what really happened and not demand retribution which may feel good but does nothing to prevent such a crime in the future. If someone who saw him a school setting or evaluated him for military fitness recognized his mental illness and were legally required to report it and were legally protected from lawsuit for doing so, this may have never happened. Please think about what really could have been done to prevent this. If he had not bought the gun, he could have stolen or borrowed it like many killers do. We need to do the right thing to stop this insanity, even if it does not satisfy our desire for retribution.
JJ

[Guest]

Not sure how that would work if a law was passed that enabled the forced hospitalization of someone who was "accused" of being "mentally ill". I would be extremely afraid of the unforeseen consequences of such a law.

I know we have a need to find solutions to problems, but I have a hunch, we won't find one to this problem.

What usually saves a person who is losing his ability to control his actions, I think, is the observation of someone who knows him and loves him and sees the progressive change and does something about it. How do you write a law that mandates caring?

[Guest]

Not sure how that would work if a law was passed that enabled the forced hospitalization of someone who was "accused" of being "mentally ill". I would be extremely afraid of the unforeseen consequences of such a law.

I know we have a need to find solutions to problems, but I have a hunch, we won't find one to this problem.

What usually saves a person who is losing his ability to control his actions, I think, is the observation of someone who knows him and loves him and sees the progressive change and does something about it. How do you write a law that mandates caring?

We already hospitalized many people who are accused of being mentally ill. They are evaluated and either released or continued hospitalized until they are judicially determined to no longer be a danger to themselves or others.
My point is REQUIRE trained persons like we do now in cases of child abuse, to report an insane person to the Sheriff so he can investigate and if appropriate have district attorney file mental health papers. Those required could be social workers, educators, and medical personnel, just like we do now in the case of child abuse.
The problem now is confidentiality laws and the fear of liability inhibit this process.
JJ

[Guest]

Not sure how that would work if a law was passed that enabled the forced hospitalization of someone who was "accused" of being "mentally ill". I would be extremely afraid of the unforeseen consequences of such a law.

I know we have a need to find solutions to problems, but I have a hunch, we won't find one to this problem.

What usually saves a person who is losing his ability to control his actions, I think, is the observation of someone who knows him and loves him and sees the progressive change and does something about it. How do you write a law that mandates caring?

For example in this case according to the media facts, under my solution, both the educators who noticed his behavior and kicked him out of school, and the military who examined him and refused his application, would have been required to report him to the sheriff without worrying about privacy laws and fear of lawsuit. I think they would have done it.
You are correct that this problem will never be solved if we rely on people who care, because frequently they have the mistaken belief they are doing the right thing for the one they care about when they do not call the sheriff.

After 31 years of seeing this problem repeated, I sure hope someone listens.
JJ

[Guest]

If one is clearly insane .. no I don't think they should get the death penalty. They should get the help they need.

I'm saying I don't think there's a darn thing wrong with this dude. So as far as I'm concerned he should get the death sentence.

Oh BTW ... I think Charlie Manson should have gotten the chair a long time ago!! He's really played the system for way to long.

[Guest]

If one is clearly insane .. no I don't think they should get the death penalty. They should get the help they need.

I'm saying I don't think there's a darn thing wrong with this dude. So as far as I'm concerned he should get the death sentence.

Oh BTW ... I think Charlie Manson should have gotten the chair a long time ago!! He's really played the system for way to long.

Charles Manson was found guilty. He never raised the insanity defense. He was not executed because he is not eligible under California law and it has nothing to do with his sanity.

[Guest]

If one is clearly insane .. no I don't think they should get the death penalty. They should get the help they need.

I'm saying I don't think there's a darn thing wrong with this dude. So as far as I'm concerned he should get the death sentence.

Oh BTW ... I think Charlie Manson should have gotten the chair a long time ago!! He's really played the system for way to long.

I have read the writings and watched the youtube videos of this shooter in Arizona. Based on his history in school, his writings and his videos, his apparent rejection by the military, and the opinion of the sheriff and law enforcement officials who think he is mentally ill, I think it is pretty clear he is mentally ill.. but as I said in another post, I do think he is LEGALLY SANE and responsible for his actions. Before anyone makes a final judgment there is a lot of information to check out.

[Guest]

I know he was found guilty. I'm just said he should have gotten the chair. It's a shame he wasn't eligible under California law .. talk about a waste of tax dollars keeping him around all these years.

I'm sorry .. I thought he was kept alive because of the insanity defense. My bad.

[Guest]

I know he was found guilty. I'm just said he should have gotten the chair. It's a shame he wasn't eligible under California law .. talk about a waste of tax dollars keeping him around all these years.

I'm sorry .. I thought he was kept alive because of the insanity defense. My bad.

Manson was sentenced to death but it was changed to life after California abolished the Death penalty.
JJ

[Guest]

I was seaching the web to see why he didn't get the chair, only to kind out they did away with the death sentence in California.

Pfffft now wonder California is going bankrupt.

Thanks JJ for an interesting thread.

[Guest]

Here in California Gov. Reagan shut down the mental hospitals due to budget cuts. Mental patients were released only to become homeless, angry and confused. Fast forward to 2011, the mentally ill are still homeless, angry, confused and are on long waiting lists to get professional help. Here in California the parks are filled with the homeless and mentally ill.

I have a personal friend who lost her job, lost her health insurance and became seriously depressed. She tried to take her life, we found her just in time, she was hospitalized for 3 days, billed $14,000.00 for her stay. The doctor told her to see therapist when she was released, she contacted the agency, a six week wait to see the therapist. No medication was dispensed to ease her mental burden and six weeks looked like six years to her. Several of us had contacts in the medical community, she was helped immediately, others are not so fortunate.

Now imagine a mentally ill person who has a gun or has the opportunity to get a gun. Catastrophic situations occur like Tucson.


My solution is to provide medical treatment, comprehensive medical treatment for the mentally ill and stop selling guns to everyone. Let us treat our Americans with dignity and humanity for any illness that they may have. Also let Americans walk freely knowing they will not be gunned down by a mentally ill person or angry person who just lost his or her temper and had a gun.

[Guest]

I'm sorry...I can not agree with the "mentally ill" theory. To me he was a cold calculated killer. He thought it out and carried it out!!! Plain and simple.

He should get a death sentence after all that's what he sentenced his victim to. No ands, buts or if about it.


I agree. It is too simple to just scapegoat the mentally ill for actions like this. There are many people in the US who suffer from some kind of mental illness and pose no threat to other people.

[Guest]

Jhooman - please take this in the manner it is intended. I'm not being sarcastic.

In your example, who do you propose should pay for your friend's medical bills?

[Guest]

What do you think of our gun laws vs. United Kingdom's gun laws?
Would like to hear your input and what you think of the Arizona slayings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

[Guest]

So if this guy was thrown out of college, posted crazy things on YouTube and most people thought he was just a hair off.


How the H^^L DID HE GET A GUN?

[Guest]

So if this guy was thrown out of college, posted crazy things on YouTube and most people thought he was just a hair off.


How the H^^L DID HE GET A GUN?

The answer is:
The law enforcement officers when called to the college and who actually sat in on a class to protect the students from this mentally ill people did not bother to file mental health papers on him so he could be hospitalized and received treatment.. why I have been saying we need mandatory reporters.

And liberals are always spouting off that we cannot hospitalize mentally ill people and keep too many of them off the street because we do not want to violate their rights..

IF this mentally ill person had mental papers filed on him by any of those MANY people who were aware of his mental illness, he would NOT have passed the FBI backround check and he would not have been able to purchase the gun.
There is the truth.
JJ

[Guest]

The answer is:
The law enforcement officers when called to the college and who actually sat in on a class to protect the students from this mentally ill people did not bother to file mental health papers on him so he could be hospitalized and received treatment.. why I have been saying we need mandatory reporters.

And liberals are always spouting off that we cannot hospitalize mentally ill people and keep too many of them off the street because we do not want to violate their rights..

IF this mentally ill person had mental papers filed on him by any of those MANY people who were aware of his mental illness, he would NOT have passed the FBI back round check and he would not have been able to purchase the gun.
There is the truth.
JNJ

And once again the ever present bogey man liberals are at fault....

So this is an example of conservative hate speech.

[Guest]

And once again the ever present bogey man liberals are at fault....

So this is an example of conservative hate speech.

I noticed you did not deny it, and you know what I said is exactly what should have been done to prevent this crime. All you can do is call me a hater.. name calling is all liberals can do when confronted with the facts and the truth.

[Guest]

Guns kill and rather easily as we just found out. Until we can find a way to keep wearons away from people like this, home-grown terrorism will only become more of an issue. With the technology we possess today why can't we have better methods od IDing these people. I have an idea. Maybe we can take a few of the multi-billoions we use on airport security to come up with a better profiling method.

[Guest]

That of involvement. Who among us would be the first to report an individual for acting strangely to the authorities? Based on statistics I would venture a guess of significantly less than 1%.....but to allow a more than generous margin of error, make it 5%.

Involvement is not exactly a majority participant issue in today's society/environment. Just like Ft. Hood....everybody knew but nothing was done about the individual. Why? Lack of involvement? Fear of political correctness policing is more likely why even the smallest percent involvement.

The event has nothing to do with politics; nothing to do with guns; everything to do with tolerence and lack of involvement.

btk

[Guest]

[QUOTE=JimJoe;321947]The answer is:
The law enforcement officers when called to the college and who actually sat in on a class to protect the students from this mentally ill people did not bother to file mental health papers on him so he could be hospitalized and received treatment.. why I have been saying we need mandatory reporters.

And liberals are always spouting off that we cannot hospitalize mentally ill people and keep too many of them off the street because we do not want to violate their rights..

IF this mentally ill person had mental papers filed on him by any of those MANY people who were aware of his mental illness, he would NOT have passed the FBI backround check and he would not have been able to purchase the gun.
There is the truth.


You hit the nail on the head

[Guest]

I noticed you did not deny it, and you know what I said is exactly what should have been done to prevent this crime. All you can do is call me a hater.. name calling is all liberals can do when confronted with the facts and the truth.


I didn't call you anything.......you blamed the bogey man liberals who don't want the mentally ill put away.

This is called projection.......

[Guest]

The one and the best solution is: NO HANDGUNS ALLOWED!!

If you say your 2nd Amendment rights allow handguns - (In JimJoe's famous words, "Prove It"). The drafters of the Constitution had flintlock muskets and never envisioned semi-automatic Glock pistols with an extended magazine:boom:. Since al lot of you are "strict constitutionists", get a flintlock musket and keep that as allowed by the Constitution.

The 2nd Amendment also makes reference to the guns being necessary to a militia. Well, the militia is The National Guard. Let the guns be owned only by National Guard members - as well as law enforcement officers.

'Nuff said, time for more golf. Maybe I can "shoot" par!!

[Guest]

The one and the best solution is: NO HANDGUNS ALLOWED!!

If you say your 2nd Amendment rights allow handguns - (In JimJoe's famous words, "Prove It"). The drafters of the Constitution had flintlock muskets and never envisioned semi-automatic Glock pistols with an extended magazine:boom:. Since al lot of you are "strict constitutionists", get a flintlock musket and keep that as allowed by the Constitution.

The 2nd Amendment also makes reference to the guns being necessary to a militia. Well, the militia is The National Guard. Let the guns be owned only by National Guard members - as well as law enforcement officers.

'Nuff said, time for more golf. Maybe I can "shoot" par!!

The constitution says : A well regulated Militia, being necessary to secure the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" do you not understand.
It says Arms, not flinklock musket.
Whether the reason for the right to bear arms was to have a well regulated Militia means the National Guard or not, " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
It seems to me that if you believe in gun control, you should see a Constitutional Amendment, and that may be appropriate.

[Guest]

This gun stuff has nothing to do with the second amendment and all to do with money. Just follow the money.Politics as usual in D.C. In 1994 Congress passed the assault weapons ban which included a ban on high capacity magazines which enable a gun to fire a fusalage of shots very quickly without reloading. Honestly,and any gun afficinado will tell you,the only reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun is to kill a lot of people quickly.
In 2004 with President Bush support the Senate supported renewal but the House never voted on it.
Now this nut buys a handgun and 2 high capacity 33 round magazines and in a matter of seconds kills 6 people.
Here is where it becomes very obvious to me that money buys votes on BOTH sides od the aisle. NRA spent $12.2 million in the 2009-2010 election cycle with $1.4 going directly to candidates of BOTH parties.
Maybe I'm a dreamer but I do not believe that our representitives would vote to allow assault rifles and high capacity magazines to be sold under the guise of the second amendment.
As a gun owner I find this sickening. People it's ALL about the money. Think about it. Even if they cancelled the 2nd amendment do you really think people like me would give up my guns?
I just wonder how these people would vote if the NRA wasn't giving them money. This is part of the reason why I have no faith in our government. To me they are all bought and paid for and this liberal v conservative stuff might get some of you excited but in the big picture if you are not contributing lots of money your wasting your breath.

[Guest]

This gun stuff has nothing to do with the second amendment and all to do with money. Just follow the money.Politics as usual in D.C. In 1994 Congress passed the assault weapons ban which included a ban on high capacity magazines which enable a gun to fire a fusalage of shots very quickly without reloading. Honestly,and any gun afficinado will tell you,the only reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun is to kill a lot of people quickly.
In 2004 with President Bush support the Senate supported renewal but the House never voted on it.
Now this nut buys a handgun and 2 high capacity 33 round magazines and in a matter of seconds kills 6 people.
Here is where it becomes very obvious to me that money buys votes on BOTH sides od the aisle. NRA spent $12.2 million in the 2009-2010 election cycle with $1.4 going directly to candidates of BOTH parties.
Maybe I'm a dreamer but I do not believe that our representitives would vote to allow assault rifles and high capacity magazines to be sold under the guise of the second amendment.
As a gun owner I find this sickening. People it's ALL about the money. Think about it. Even if they cancelled the 2nd amendment do you really think people like me would give up my guns?
I just wonder how these people would vote if the NRA wasn't giving them money. This is part of the reason why I have no faith in our government. To me they are all bought and paid for and this liberal v conservative stuff might get some of you excited but in the big picture if you are not contributing lots of money your wasting your breath.

I get nothing from the NRA. I do not own a gun. I respect the Constitution.

[Guest]

The one and the best solution is: NO HANDGUNS ALLOWED!!
If you say your 2nd Amendment rights allow handguns - (In JimJoe's famous words, "Prove It"). The drafters of the Constitution had flintlock muskets and never envisioned semi-automatic Glock pistols with an extended magazine:boom:. Since al lot of you are "strict constitutionists", get a flintlock musket and keep that as allowed by the Constitution.

The 2nd Amendment also makes reference to the guns being necessary to a militia. Well, the militia is The National Guard. Let the guns be owned only by National Guard members - as well as law enforcement officers.


The National Guard isn't mentioned anywhere in the 2nd Ammendment.

I've done more than a little research on the Constitution, and "well-regulated militia" is the 2nd most misunderstood clause in the entire document, in my opinion (IMO, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is the first, it doesn't say "an establishment of A religion" like most people seem to think)

Breaking it down:

"Well-regulated" - meaning "well-trained", meaning you COULD hit the broad side of a barn with your firearm.

"Militia" - meaning ANY able-bodied citizen that could be called into service.

And, for what it's worth, flintlocks WERE the personal weapons of mass destruction of the day.

Now, one could argue that "well-regulated" could be interpreted to mean something that could require one to take a training course before being allowed a weapon. That's something that could be debated.

"Militia" implied able-bodied which could be the basis for denying arms to the mentally unstable.

[Guest]

JimJoe,it has nothing to do with the Constitution. That's what the NRA and others would have us believe. It's ALL about the money and where it goes. Our politicians could care less about the 2nd amendment,show them the money and they will vote for anything.

[Guest]

Well, the round of golf was good.

The Constitution does not mention the National Guard - because it did not exist at that time. However, the militia of today is the National Guard (what the "minutemen" used to be).

The Constitution does not mention Glock semi-automatic pistols with high capacity magazines, either.

The right of the people to own and bear arms shall not be infringed? Well, how do the "strict constructionists" explain that convicted felons are not allowed to have guns? They are not specifically mentioned, are they?

Let every American own whatever weapon they want? 50 caliber machine guns, bazookas, Surface-to-Air missiles, Glocks with high capacity magazines - all of these definitely are "sporting" guns or "personal defense" weapons.

'Nuff time wasted here - I have read all I am going to. JimmyJoe - have fun with your rants from Iowa. Bye-bye

[Guest]

JimJoe,it has nothing to do with the Constitution. That's what the NRA and others would have us believe. It's ALL about the money and where it goes. Our politicians could care less about the 2nd amendment,show them the money and they will vote for anything.

I care about the Constitution.
I swore to uphold it for the 31 years I was a lawyer, including the 13.5 years I was the chief law enforcement officer and First Assistant in my county.
JJ

[Guest]

The right of the people to own and bear arms shall not be infringed? Well, how do the "strict constructionists" explain that convicted felons are not allowed to have guns? They are not specifically mentioned, are they?

'Nuff time wasted here - I have read all I am going to. JimmyJoe - have fun with your rants from Iowa. Bye-bye

Wonderful post. Ask a question. Belittle my speech by calling it Rants from Iowa, and indicate you do not want to know the answer by saying ..nuff time wasted here.. bye bye.
Very civil discussion from you. You forgot to call me stupid.

Here is your answer whether you read it or not. The word "people" refers to free citizens. The first amendment refers to the right of the people to assemble.. under your interpretation we would have to let prisoners have guns while they are in prisons and we would have to let them out of prison so they could peaceably assemble.. Felons are given restricted release, upon parole or probation. One of the restrictions is they can no longer bear arms. Sometimes their freedom of association with other felons is prohibited. Their rights to vote and bear arms can be restored upon proof they are a law abiding citizen... that is they are a free person again. There is an entire body of law that says you can forfeit the UNRESTRICTED exercises of your constitutional rights when you have been CONVICTED of a serious crime.

If you do not want me to waste your time, do not ask me a question.
JJ

[Guest]

JimJoe,I am not telling you not to care about the Constitution.Please care about it. It's all we've got. However it is being attacked and not by conservatives or liberals but by big money interest groups who through paying off the right politicians get any law passed or not passed that they want.Most legislation passed are not liberal or conservative laws they are who gets the most money laws. I really believe that the only people who care about this left right stuff are the TV stations so they can sell advertising. Always watch who gets the money and JimJoe it's rarely you and me.

[Guest]

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

So when the violent oriented person who wants to do some one in, with no guns available, what could be their weapon(s) of choice:
knives?
ballbats?
screwdrivers?
automobiles?
frying pans

Maybe a club like the cave men had....they did not have many choices....or some 24/7 media pulling the polly parrot string on the lemming!!!

Being anti gun by choice is ones personal decision. But please do not use it as a basis for the cause of the evil done with them.
And oh by the way if guns were not allowed do the anti gunners really believe the criminal element and their suppliers would not make guns available to the next wacko that seeks one?
It has been proven time and again gun control does not work.

btk

[Guest]

Wonderful post. Ask a question. Belittle my speech by calling it Rants from Iowa, and indicate you do not want to know the answer by saying ..nuff time wasted here.. bye bye.
Very civil discussion from you. You forgot to call me stupid.

Here is your answer whether you read it or not. The word "people" refers to free citizens. The first amendment refers to the right of the people to assemble.. under your interpretation we would have to let prisoners have guns while they are in prisons and we would have to let them out of prison so they could peaceably assemble.. Felons are given restricted release, upon parole or probation. One of the restrictions is they can no longer bear arms. Sometimes their freedom of association with other felons is prohibited. Their rights to vote and bear arms can be restored upon proof they are a law abiding citizen... that is they are a free person again. There is an entire body of law that says you can forfeit the UNRESTRICTED exercises of your constitutional rights when you have been CONVICTED of a serious crime.

If you do not want me to waste your time, do not ask me a question.
JJ


This is the new approach of the small minded Tbugs. He's been making insulting nonsensical drive-by comments, and then says "nah nah, I'm not listening anymore ........starting..........NOW. It's really rather ironic. He makes himself look like an idiot and feels he's getting the last laugh.

Of course, I'm kind of sinking to his level to draw him out. We'll see if I'm successful, but it doesn't really matter.

[Guest]

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

So when the violent oriented person who wants to do some one in, with no guns available, what could be their weapon(s) of choice:
knives?
ballbats?
screwdrivers?
automobiles?
frying pans

Maybe a club like the cave men had....they did not have many choices....or some 24/7 media pulling the polly parrot string on the lemming!!!

Being anti gun by choice is ones personal decision. But please do not use it as a basis for the cause of the evil done with them.
And oh by the way if guns were not allowed do the anti gunners really believe the criminal element and their suppliers would not make guns available to the next wacko that seeks one?
It has been proven time and again gun control does not work.

btk


I figure this might be the wrong forum for a gun control debate, but maybe it's unavoidable. The thing with guns is that they really are the great equalizer. Guns promote dialog. Think about it. If a more powerful man (country) wants what you've got, he can just take it; right? Well, not if you're armed. Then he's no bigger than you and he must now talk to you and negotiate what he needs or wants from you.

The international example of this is Israel, one of the smallest countries in the world; but no enemy messes with them. If they do, it's at their peril. Why? Because no enemy of Israel, no matter their size or wealth, is more powerfully armed than Israel.

If you really believe in gun control I think you should state that belief proudly and loudly to your community.

Erect a sign on your property that reads.

"This Is A Gun Free Home"

[Guest]

[QUOTE=JimJoe;322159]Wonderful post. Ask a question. Belittle my speech by calling it Rants from Iowa, and indicate you do not want to know the answer by saying ..nuff time wasted here.. bye bye.
Very civil discussion from you. You forgot to call me stupid.

Here is your answer whether you read it or not. The word "people" refers to free citizens. The first amendment refers to the right of the people to assemble.. under your interpretation we would have to let prisoners have guns while they are in prisons and we would have to let them out of prison so they could peaceably assemble.. Felons are given restricted release, upon parole or probation. One of the restrictions is they can no longer bear arms. Sometimes their freedom of association with other felons is prohibited. Their rights to vote and bear arms can be restored upon proof they are a law abiding citizen... that is they are a free person again. There is an entire body of law that says you can forfeit the UNRESTRICTED exercises of your constitutional rights when you have been CONVICTED of a serious crime.

If you do not want me to waste your time, do not ask me a question.
JJ[/QUOTE

TBUGS showed he has absolutely NO credibility when he was the first to post and blame PALIN and the conservatives for this Idiot in Arizona.
Just a bit quick to be judgemental.

[Guest]

19 were killed with MACHETES yesterday.

It ain't the guns, or politics.....man in Las Vegas yesterday disembowels girl friend....and on and on and on.

The common denominator being man....and his behavior....they cheat, steal, lie, murder/kill by ANY NUMBER OF MEANS....whether they are poor, rich, famous, elected officials, church official, government officials and on and on.

Common denominator....man.

Guns, like global warming are nothing more than a political play.

Like all other statistics ignored by the media and special interest aficianados,
responsible gun ownership is in the highest of the 90 percentiles.

Gun control is not the issue. The behavior of man is. And in more recent years as proven by the shooting at Ft. Hood and now again in AZ, the fault lies in the permissiveness of our society. Both shooters were know for there murder potential, yet NOTHING was done or reported. And as we sit here today some where among us is another wacko that will do his or her thing against the innocent....and we will have known about them long before they do their deed.

btk

[Guest]

I'm reminded of the button I have that says "An armed society is a polite society"