General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIn NJ, James Holmes likely would have been caught before committing his massacre
That's because prospective NJ handgun owners are required to submit to in-depth local law enforcement background checks and questioning before being granted a handgun permit. LE would have personally queried family members, neighbors, and employers (if any) to make sure the handgun permit seeker isn't a psycho.
Holmes legally purchased his two Glock pistols and his Smith and Wesson AR-15 semi-automatic rifle in Colorado this past Spring. The Smith and Wesson is not legally available in NJ (as it exceeds the 15-round limit). But more importantly, with all the information surfacing about his personality, any attempt by him to obtain a handgun permit would have alerted police that they had a psycho on their hands.
Do these steps completely eliminate gun massacres and gun crimes in NJ? No, but they would have prevented the massacre in this case.
In Colorado? No gun permit or license required. No way for law enforcement to have prevented last night's massacre.
malaise
(267,823 posts)It's crazy
Daniel537
(1,560 posts)By all accounts so far he seemed to just be another average person, no criminal history, no threats, no history of mental problems. Unless being a loner is reason alone to deny someone the ability to purchase a firearm. And personally, i don't think my 2nd amendment rights should be subject to the statements of neighbors and employers, as if their word is somehow the gospel.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)no surprise that her son was behind the shootings.
Daniel537
(1,560 posts)after being informed of his identity by ABC News, i don't know if that automatically translates into "i'm not surprised", but we'll see.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)DocMac
(1,628 posts)Take this little shit away. He dropped out and isn't paying rent! He'll be a homeless little shit when he gets home!
??
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Lawyer Lisa Damiani said her client Arlene Holmes was awakened about 5:45 a.m. PST Friday by ABC News. Damiani she was asked if she was Arlene Holmes, and if her son was James Holmes. Reading a statement from Arlene, Damiani said "I said 'Yes, you have the right person.' But I was talking about myself."
http://www.denverpost.com/theatershooting/ci_21139349/alleged-shooters-mom-reports-she-knew-son-was
Tejas
(4,759 posts)yellerpup
(12,249 posts)trumps the second amendment.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)trumps the second amendment.
Not to mention the Founding Fathers couldn't even imagine a Smith and Wesson AR-15 semi-automatic rifle.
yellerpup
(12,249 posts)Life comes first and I'm not willing to lay mine down because some jackass is mad about something. 100 rounds and 71 shot like fish in a barrel. This is sick and wrong. Fuck the NRA and the congress they paid for.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Good luck in a court of law with a case based on your emotions.
yellerpup
(12,249 posts)you can check your emotions in a court of law.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Daniel537
(1,560 posts)yellerpup
(12,249 posts)Who said I was? There is nothing constitutional or "well regulated" about any asshat who wants to get his name in the headlines for becoming a mass murderer when all he has to do is buy an assault rifle.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)No one right "trumps" any of the others.
yellerpup
(12,249 posts)And when all the water in this country is fouled, I hope you can evolve quickly enough to digest petrochemicals.
"life, liberty, etc." comes from the Declaration of Independence and represents the principles upon which the country was founded. The second amendment is outdated. It was written before the US had a standing army and needed citizen soldiers. It was not written in so citizen soldiers could attack the government.
My right to live supercedes your right to pack heat. You may have to kill me to prove my point.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)in the constitution gives people permission to "foul" all the water in the country?
We're talking about rights in the constitution. Each one is equal. You can't station troops in my house any more than you can force me to adhere to some religion. Both prohibitions are exactly the same (although one comes up more often).
My right to live supercedes your right to pack heat. You may have to kill me to prove my point.
Hyperventilate much?
yellerpup
(12,249 posts)I don't worry about troops being quartered in my house. I feel sorry that you are so frightened. I'm breathing just fine, but you might try standing on the other side of the fire while I burn your straw men on the trash heap.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)then made a bunch of odd claims and finished with something about us having to kill you.
Safe to say you're a wee bit emotional about this.
No one is going to shoot you.
yellerpup
(12,249 posts)It's just another example of how our elected representatives are not protecting us against special interests. In the case of polluted water the villain is the petro-chemical industry. In the case of mass murder, our representatives are whores for the NRA. I think you are probably more emotional about it than I am.
Think of the victims of gun violence, please.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Gregorian
(23,867 posts)I don't think this is an easy task by any means. But this is at the heart of the problem. We are simply not spending enough time and energy making this a good society.
We can blame video games, guns, violence in movies. I do not believe they are at the heart of this problem. When a president invades a country, and snickers about it, it sends a message. And young minds are open to this kind of thing.
My point is that given a healthy mind, and healthy body, and healthy family, we not only minimize the damage and costs to society, but we minimize the potential for people to be manipulated by the things that we seem to enjoy in this country. There is a common thread, from financial institutions to entertainment, that portrays life as being cheap. Given the poor level of societal health we're in, it does more than just set the stage for violence. It promotes it.
But even in a perfect society, we must be spending time and energy carefully selecting those who can and cannot wield a gun.
Guns are a form of power. I think we need to see it in just that light. Who are we willing to give power to. And who should be prevented from having it.
Response to Gregorian (Reply #7)
HangOnKids This message was self-deleted by its author.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)LisaL
(44,962 posts)According to all reports, he legally purchased all his weapons and ammunition.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)NJ is well past the reasonable gun laws line.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)Any more than walking is analogous to driving a tanker truck loaded with methane.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)a 21st century man with three assault weapons is no different than an 18th century farmer with a musket.
If that makes my attitude cavalier, so be it.
DBoon
(22,288 posts)we should honor the dead as martyrs dieing to support our constitutional liberty
CTyankee
(63,771 posts)Dred Scott and all that followed...
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)In NJ, that's what happens. If the Chief doesn't like you, you don;t get a gun permit. He didn't like your Obama sign in your yard, you dated his niece and cheated on her, you're in an interracial marriage? No gun permit. Maybe your boss calls you a Communist during the process, guess what? No permit.
This process is ridiculous, and all the examples I have used are real life ones. You can sue if this happens to you, if you have the money for an attorney.
There is nothing wrong with having a criminal and mental health check before you can get a sidearm, which is what happened with me. I had another one and had to take a course, complete with practical and written test, to get my CW.
States like NJ have an UNFAIR process to be a gun owner, because the criteria used is not objective.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Where I live, records are kept it is law enforcement that knows if a person is unfit to carry a gun. If a person has, for example, been involuntarily committed to a mental ward, there are professionals using objective standards, and families are involved in the process which made it sound like siimilar to our system. As I said, sounds like.
Some people will not overome their mental sitution with a prescription drug or a stay in a hospital, but require a much longer form or a lifetime of care, and there is a determination of what is the last restrictive setting for such individuals where they will not be able to kill themselves or attack others during their episodes. Dependent of the level of incapacity and the record of being able to function safely, that is, not a danger to himself, others or property, that person can be restricted from owning a fire arm for life.
It is not much of a burden as not being able to drive, work, ride public transportation, and does not affect their ability to vote as their situation is a behavioral issue that can be mitigated with care. Owning a weapon is a responsiblity that is greater than voting, driving, working or many other parts of daily living.
Your claim is more about corruption, favoritism or cronyism than a review system. The system that was described was adequate to deal with persons who are not safe to own a deadly weapon by means of proven mental illness. If you lived here and had not convicted of a felony or found otherwise a problem to society, you have had to fill out forms and would have no problems.
I answered the OP which contended that the law in NJ would have prevented a man who many are asssuming to suffer from mental illness, from legal ownership, so I'm not sure what this hysteria is, but corruption in the state of NJ and favortism is the problem, not a system of review.
Since I don't fall into the categories listed as a disqualifier for legal gun ownership, I am not worried about being denied my RKBA where I live. I actually do, however, know some people that have been adjudicated through mental htealth court and are not able to carry a guns. Believe me, being able to carry a gun is the LEAST of their worries.
Some folks are getting emotional and going after neutral comments such as I made about a system described as being reasonable to end a massacre. The responses I've read today are emotional, although yours is well written and not snarky. I merely said it sounded good, didn't call for anyone to deny you your rights.
As as I just explained, your problem when you give examples of who dated who or who has a political sign in their yard not getting a gun permit is not about an objective system. Perhaps you should address your concerns to the OP writer, as he may not know that there are problems with the system he stated.
As far as I am concerned, I can live without a gun. There are guys driving up and down my street every night and day with guns, lots of guns. They are called police. A gun shop is across the street and I can go and buy one, but I don't need to have one. I don't feel the least bit oppressed, either. I would however, be highly aggravated if some of the people that fit the category as a danger to themselves and others were running down the street with a loaded gun, as they do not have sufficient impulse control or judgment to go about without supervision.
It is time for you and others in NJ to fire the police chief by firing the person who appointed him, go into politics, if you think your system is unjust. Or please tell the OP writer. how wrong he is, if you haven't already. The 2nd Amendment is not going to be repealed, and IHMO, none of the laws or conditions for massacres will be changed. ProSense's article about the ban that would have prohibited the purchase of the weapons used made a good point, but that ban is not going to be restored.
There appears to be a bit of hysteria which I am not going to get involved with. The status quo on this has been settled for the rest of my lifetime. The solution to your sense of being wronged is changing the elected officials in your area. Thank you for expressing the problem in enforcing a fair system in NJ.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)I don't live in a state with subjective gun laws. I live in a state where law-abiding citizens with a clean criminal and mental health background are allowed to own guns, regardless of personal vendettas or political discrimination by law enforcement.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)About a system of regulation, but cronyism and corruptions. A system of regulations about anything can be enforce in an objective manner. I do not know if the OP writer lives in NJ. Perhaps you should ask him.
Your post was full of examples indicating personal knowledge of how such a system would be applied in NJ, which you now say you don't live in. If you did not have this level of knowing what is wrong, why are you going there? You claim that NJ is enforcing 'personal vendettas or political discrimination by law enforcement.'
I also live in a state 'where law-abiding citizens with a clean criminal and mental health background are allowed to own guns' and 'personal vendettas or political discrimination by law enforcement' are NOT a problem here, despite having a number of laws about gun ownership.
You made these charges about New Jersey at the same time you took what I said way out of context:
'Should the Chief of Police be judge and jury?'
What I described in my response to you, did not ask for any such thing. A Chief of Police is not a judge and jury in any state. So why did you go there?
'In NJ, that's what happens.' The OP doesn't mention the Chief of Police, but a system of regulations.
'If the Chief doesn't like you, you don;t get a gun permit. He didn't like your Obama sign in your yard, you dated his niece and cheated on her, you're in an interracial marriage? No gun permit. Maybe your boss calls you a Communist during the process, guess what? No permit.'
That is a lot to say about New Jersey. And your references are all personal ones that don't prove that, the Chief of Police, who is not mentioned in the OP, but rather, says this is the system in place:
'That's because prospective NJ handgun owners are required to submit to in-depth local law enforcement background checks and questioning before being granted a handgun permit. LE would have personally queried family members, neighbors, and employers (if any) to make sure the handgun permit seeker isn't a psycho.'
What's wrong with that? Why would all these other civil rights issues be part of the process? Are you saying there are no objective, verifiable records being kept in the state of NJ? Why assume all of these individuals are going to make subjective decisions, and discriminate? Why go there?
I'm not sure how you find my neutral statement on an OP to be a problem to your idea of your rights. Not all states are full of vendettas and political discrimination by law enforcement. Since you describe what is clearly corruption in NJ, that is still the issue for me, but you have not proven your case since you now say these are not your experiences either. Maybe you have a perception of New Jersey that differs from brentspeak, so you should challenge him.
Apparently, it is too emotional right now to have a rational discussion about gun regulation on DU. So thank you for your time and courtesy, and support of Obama. But I'm not going to respond to any more gun things for a while as I have a splitting headache. Have a nice weekend.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)One of my neighbors applied for a gun permit and was denied. Two weeks later his life was saved before he bled out from his wrists. That was almost ten years ago and he is alive, well and recovered from his wife's death that caused his depression.
In the 10 years that I have lived here there has been only one incidence of injury or death by gun and that was within a family that had one of the few guns permitted in town.
I wish the NRA would stick to the hicks in the Red States. Why can't the sane people get out of there and let us dump what's left into their quagmire of guns, bigotry and lack of critical thinking!
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)???
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)no prior convictions or diagnoses for mental illness. Also he could have gotten around it by simply not buying handguns and just purchasing the AR-15 (which is what he used).
And of course all his friends and family seemed shocked by this so interviewing them would have been a waste of time.
Oh yeah and NJ has a murder rate roughly double that of CO.
hollysmom
(5,946 posts)I remember when a guy flew into Newark from Colorado and had a disassembled gun in his checked suitcase. He rented a car and drove through Newark, Belleville and Nutley shooting at people, killed 3 I think, before the Nutley police took him down in a shoot out in a park under a bridge.
Crazies cross state lines all the time, this is why we need a national program.
Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)With a yearly checkup to maintain your privilege of ownership.
jonthebru
(1,034 posts)"A well regulated militia" is the line that opens the second amendment. Key word "regulated" or better yet, "well regulated."
What part of that phrase lends us to not have better crazy people gun control?
klook
(12,134 posts)Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Walk away
(9,494 posts)The right to vote and your debatable right to carry any kind of gun anywhere has nothing in common.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Carrying is another matter. Note that I have carried while voting.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)to take rights away from minorities.
I wonder if people on DU would support such a measure if it turns out that minorities are being deemed "mentally unfit" at a rate greater than whites.
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)Not confiscate all guns, but regulate the sale of guns. Is this acceptable to gun nuts? No. They'd rather watch innocent people die than be rational. It's a religion. This is why it's a waste of time trying to reason with them.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)They're hollering to ban all guns. This is precisely the message that makes responsible gun owners dig in their heels.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Where?
Who here has advocated such a thing?
I'm sure there are some small groups who would like to ban guns, but MOST people want reasonable gun controls. What reason is there for you to be able to buy a big ass gun in a field in Nowhere, Alabama? This "ban all guns" meme is a bunch of malarkey made up by the NRA. It's the gun worshipers who are unreasonable.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Seen several such posts today
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)You can always count on Shares United under his new identity and others to post along those lines.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)I guess you missed them. And automatic weapons are very tightly regulated. And large bore weapons, 50 calibre and up, are flat out illegal. There goes your "buy a big-ass gun in an Alabama field" argument. The shooter wasn't a "gun-nut", he had only bought the weapons in May. The AR 15 he bought is only a .223, thats small for a rifle, smaller even than the Glocks he bought (9mm, I assume).
The answer to drunk-driving wasn't banning cars, it was doing the best we could to keep drunks from getting behind the wheel. The answer to gun-control should be the same. Don't go after the 80 million or so responsible gun owners, enlist their aid in going after the bad ones.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Oh my GOD!
6 people want to ban guns altogether! We're DOOMED!!!!
As I said: You gun nuts are the problem....as you just proved. It's amusing, and pitiful, that gun nuts think they look and sound reasonable when they are more hysterical about guns than anyone for regulation.
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)False equivalency again. A few liberals say they want to ban all guns. All gun advocates oppose regulating access to guns.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)I think gun enthusiasts are worried that increased regulation would be the foot in the door to banning all guns. Why do they think that? Because the NRA tells them so, and the job is made easy by the "ban all guns" crowd. I think there is ground to be had in the middle. The key is to remove both extremes from the debate.
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)The NRA won. 12 innocent people in Aurora and their families and friends lose. So glad I'm a liberal. I would hate to have their blood on my hands.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)100% NOT TRUE.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)What the anti-gun zealots refuse to grasp is that NRA membership represents about 4% of all gun owners. Thats about the same percentage as black republicans. The NRA has a powerful political prescence, too powerful IMO, but they dont speak for a majority of gun owners on most issues. But talk about banning most gun types made in the last 150years, if not altogether, would spark a huge boost in membership.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)I can see you didn't vote for President Obama. Did you hear, the Tea Party wants him to explain why he's a Gay crack head. Can you explain why gun rights advocates are so worried about the government grabbing their guns? Is it paranoia or the drugs?
Marengo
(3,477 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Hes just spewing bullshit.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)ma guns ma guns please don't take my guns da gubermint going to take ma guns.
Who is spewing bullshit, you or us?
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Gonna burn me for being a witch next?
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)I suggest you consider retracting it if you care about your credibility.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)when you can't answer who you voted for honestly in the 08 election, I don't need to talk to you any further.
Remember read the T.O.S. and figure it out for yourselves, both of you.
Merry Christmas.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)but, hey, apparently you receive some pleasure from that.
Okay, as we've established you have no credibility, how much do you value integrity? You've imperiled that as well by issuing an accusation without any evidence. This is neither ethical or moral, and therefore violates these fundamental principles of integrity.
"I don't give a shit, credibility is for Repukes to defend when you can't answer who you voted for honestly in the 08 election"
Ah, so anyone who doesn't respond to you inquiry is a "Repuke", are all Democrats required to reveal who thyy have voted for to whomever may inquire? Is this stated somewhere in the party platform?
'Remember read the T.O.S'
It is you who needs this bit of advice.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)Happy new Year
Marengo
(3,477 posts)oldhippie
(3,249 posts)So noted. I'll keep this in mind whenever reading any of your future posts. I might suggest others do the same.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)I suggest you get glasses, then.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)yes or no. If you can't honestly answer yes, we know where you stand.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Getting pretty authoritarian, aren't you? What's next, a demand to see my papers?
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)the President and I'm proud of it.
Most of you can't say the same.
If you can't answer a simple question like that, our conversation is done. I know who you are now.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)taterguy
(29,582 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)I, for one, would like to know how you know this.
gateley
(62,683 posts)Edit virtual keyboard auto fill typo.
JeepJK556
(56 posts)It is perfectly legal to own an AR-15 in New Jersey. It just must be compliant with the Assault Weapons ban.
Which means when you buy it, the stock will be pinned so that it can't be adjusted for length (Standard AR stocks can telescope about 6 inches for ergonomic adjustment), the bayonet lug/flash hider will be removed, and the rifle will ship with a 10 round magazine.
Pre-ban 30 rounds mags are readily available.
Furthermore, I don't know that I would consider putting a Constitutional right (SCOTUS has ruled handgun ownership an individual right) into the hands of random neighbors or coworkers a very reasonable restriction. Certainly not something a progressive should be supporting.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)If your marriage is interracial, you won't get a gin permit. If your boss doesn't like you, your neighbor thinks you're a dick because you blare music sometime, you won't get a permit. All of these scenarios happen in NJ. And, the Chief of Police can deny your application "just because." People with the money are always suing because of being denied a permit "just because."
SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA should never be used for something like this.
I had to go through a FEDERAL criminal and mental health check, which also included DMV records. Why is this process considered worse than asking my neighbors if it bothers them I have a gun, or a coworker who doesn't even really know me?
on edit: this process also applies to buying a BB gun.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Holmes only got 1 lousy speeding ticket within the last year.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)I am not willing to submit to government permission to own firearms just because every once and a while a lunatic uses one to kill people.
The right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutionally enumerated individual right.
No one should have to demonstrate competence to speak or to vote. Likewise to own firearms.
If you have been adjudicated mentally incompetent or have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, you should fail your NICS check.
If you want to talk about other ways, that respect due process, to lose your right to keep and bear arms, I'm all ears. But it must respect the due process of law, and it must preserve anonymous firearm ownership.
beac
(9,992 posts)Incorrect. That "individual right" was made up in 2008 by our current right-wing Supreme Court when they gutted the "well regulated militia" language put there by the Founding Fathers.
And don't try and tell me that Scalia and the rest of those vile pukes are anything approaching Constitutional scholars. They are 100% paid-for schills for the NRA, among other right-wing organizations.
And just in case you think you're making a new argument:
As you said, why should YOUR "right" to own a gun be in any way regulated "just because every once and a while a lunatic uses one to kill people"?
This is a great strip.
As you said, why should YOUR "right" to own a gun be in any way regulated "just because every once and a while a lunatic uses one to kill people"?
As you said, why should YOUR "right" to own a car be in any way regulated "just because every once and a while a lunatic uses one to kill people"?
beac
(9,992 posts)And it's not even original. FAIL.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)"YOU'RE A STUPID-STUPE, AND YOU FAIL, NEENER NEENER"
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Though in general property ownership is.
Between the Constitution and SCOTUS, there is tremendous wall that those who want to ban and disarm will have to climb legally. Then they will have to deal with the mass civil disobedience that would follow
Response to beac (Reply #26)
Post removed
beac
(9,992 posts)Tejas
(4,759 posts)beac
(9,992 posts)and are spamming every shooting thread on DU with, is "cars kill people too!" So, forgive me if I don't find your one-trick-pony worthy of any kind of actual debate.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)So, you have enough of a problem with me posting about current events to bitch about it on a public forum?
Spam? You mean the eleventybillion threads about the cold blooded piece of shit that shot...oh wait, my bad...the eleventybillion threads crying OMFG BAN GUNS!!1! ?
Do you think you are the only one who has read and responded more than one thread on this topic?
Alas for you, your one-trick-ponery stands out pretty obviously even OPs with dozens of replies. So, yeah, I noticed that you had little or nothing to add to the overall debate pretty quickly.
Stalk you??
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Firstly, that individual right existed far before it was recognized in 2008.
Secondly, you'll notice that all nine justices agreed that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right.
Thirdly, yes, the well-regulated militias were gutted, but this happened in 1903 with the passage of the Dick Act.
As you said, why should YOUR "right" to own a gun be in any way regulated "just because every once and a while a lunatic uses one to kill people"?
It shouldn't.
beac
(9,992 posts)would know WHO had guns and HOW many?
But, as I thought the cartoon I posted might have clued you in, your "right" to anonymously stockpile killing machines isn't going anywhere.
It should, but it isn't.
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)evilhime
(326 posts)ethereal1
(11 posts)This super effective NJ system have prevented him from deploying those handy-dandy little Improvised Explosive Devices he made in his apartment?
Unfortunately, a determined psycho such as this will not abandon his dastardly intentions to harm his fellow citizens because he was unable to buy a 30-round magazine.
Ethereal1
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)Just put the guns in the supermarket, right next to the organic produce. Get one for your three-year-old kid and your 97-year-old grandfather! Why not? Because someone might make a bomb anyway, right?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I mean a majority of people probably wouldn't mis-use a nuke, just some nutcase every once in a while.
The 2nd Amendment was a protection against the government becoming tyrannical, to make sure the citizenry was prepared if the government ever abused the use of the 'standing army'.
Explain how today, gun ownership would protect the people from the government if it should abuse its power over the people?
Taking the 2nd Amendment literally as it was intended, we the people would have to be armed with the same weapons the government has.
Using this amendment to argue for weapons that will not in any way serve the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment is simply a clever way to get support for the sale of arms which in no way would serve the purpose intended by the 2nd Amendment, imo.
The truth is the FFs could not have predicted the kind of WMDs that governments have today.
So if you are a 2nd Amendment defender, you obviously support individual ownership of every weapon the government has, including nukes, do you not?
tsuki
(11,994 posts)But, the fish & game people will not allow you to hunt with clip that accommodates more than 5 rounds. And nobody bitches.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Putting emphisis on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies is going to be politically far easier than banning all guns. The anti-gun crowd is being far too obstinate for progress to be made.
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)More right wing BS.
mountain grammy
(26,571 posts)Have a little Smith and Wesson myself and I love that little sucker. Someday the local bear will try to get in my door, and I'll have a new rug. But semi automatics, weapons of war and mass destruction, thousands of rounds of ammunition? Are we mad?
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)I have no problem with someone owning hunting rifles, a shotgun and a hand gun for self defence. I do have a problem with assault weapons. I do have a problem with someone being able to buy a gun without a background check. I do have a problem with illegal gun dealers having unfettered access to guns in the South so they can be sold to gangs in the Northeast and Southwest.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Presto! A hunting rifle! Most of the popularity of them is the high-tech appearance. Functionally, little difference than many common hunting rifles. Why did Holmes buy an AR-15? He wanted to look like a bad ass.
And he had a clean record, and passed the background check. Im not sure much can be done about that. But there are certainly a lot of private and parking lot sales that are unregulated that should be tightened up.
malaise
(267,823 posts)Well said
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)All handguns are, except for revolvers. You mean automatics.
jp11
(2,104 posts)Because the people he would have referenced and would've picked his friends or people who wouldn't piss on him, can't be relatives, as some sort of nut job to 'okay' him as a gun owner.
http://www.njsp.org/info/pdf/firearms/sts-033.pdf
There isn't a team that goes around investigating potential gun owners there is a form and it gets mailed out to people the applicant chooses if it isn't returned no permit, if they say negative things about the person probably, hopefully, no permit.
And in NJ I'm sure he could have driven over to PA for a gunshow and bought guns without any id, but I'm not positive about that. If not he could have driven to other states to buy a gun or just gotten one off the street.
You take the idea that this hindsight was readily available and known to all if that was the case then lots of people, his family members, neighbors, and employers all failed to speak out about him. What seems to be the case is he was just one of many shy, polite people that others would 'peg' as a potential nut because he was shy and nice ie he fit the quiet loner stereotype who goes nuts.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)kill 'em all let God sort 'em out. Is that the way you folks think it should be?
Bullshit. Stop defending the gun for once.
LAGC
(5,330 posts)The only way to nip this problem in the bud is to increase our mental health care system in this country and catch these people before they act.
If not for guns, this psycho would have used bombs or chemicals to kill just as many, if not more, people. The weapon of choice is irrelevant. It's the actor that needs to be addressed, or these killing sprees will keep happening.
jp11
(2,104 posts)you are one exceptional DU'er and I do mean exceptional.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)There's just a different mindset, attitude, and priorities in the wild west states, I think, vs. the older nor'eastern states. That doesn't make one worse than the other. Just different.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)So yeah there is a difference. More murder in Jersey, that's the difference! NY, 4.5. MA, 3.2. That does sort of make one worse, actually. More murder is worse....
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)I was speaking of the mindset pertaining to gun control. The west was settled by a wild bunch, including women, who had to use guns and other weapons to stay alive, keep their homesteads, etc. Although people move all over the country, many of the laws date back many years and reflect old attitudes. Once there is a history somewhere about something, an attitude, it's hard to change it. It becomes part of the culture of the area.
That's all I meant.
doc03
(35,148 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:25 PM - Edit history (1)
ramikin
(20 posts)Firearms were prohibited in the theater. AKA a helpless victim zone. Maybe we could pass a law banning the killing of innocent people in theaters so this could never happen again. You know for the children.
doc03
(35,148 posts)know if firearms were banned in the theater or are you just assuming? Ronald Reagan was shot and he was surrounded by armed SS and local law enforcement officers. I find it hard to believe all the CCW carriers in the theater obeyed that rule. From the ones I know my guess is they would be hiding behind the seats pissing their pants of knocking people down to get to the exit.
LAGC
(5,330 posts)It would be colossally stupid to confront a heavily armed perp with a puny handgun, especially if it was apparent he was wearing body armor.
CCW carriers have no obligation to stop a crime in progress, especially in the very rare situations where they are heavily out-gunned. CCW is still good for most situations where a robber or assailant comes at them with a knife or fists, where the CCW holder has the superior fire-power advantage.
Not so much in these rare mass-shooting situations with heavily armed perps.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)CCW restrictions do not apply to them and they tend to carry.
Just about every CCW holder I have ever known plays by the rules.
Banning semi autos is a non-starter.
doc03
(35,148 posts)society outside of Amurika.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)You dont NEED a/c, stereo, electric starter, automatic transmission, good brakes, and a top speed over 37 mph.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)You know, for safety.
rucky
(35,211 posts)"if everybody were packing..."
I think it could happen anywhere - regardless of gun restrictions. It's symptomatic of a deeper illness in society
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)And it happened in Norway, with strict gun laws.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)in New Jersey. He'd just buy them illegally.
That said, the easy access on the Internet to things like 100-round drum magazines, tactical ballistic gear and other items, does facilitate people who want to create mayhem. Most of the sales of that stuff are to people with firearms fetishes of some kind, who are unlikely to perpetrate such a thing, but easy access is easy access.
There's even a 100-round drum magazine for the Glock pistol he owned. Looking at it, it seems like a stupid, almost useless piece of equipment, really, but it's available for those who have $350 and a pressing desire to own such a thing. The photo I saw showed some guy in tactical gear much like this shooter was wearing, ready to take on all comers. Such situations are so infrequent that owning a 100-round magazine for a Glock seems pretty foolish to me. I cannot, for the life of me, imagine any real use for it, other than mayhem.
None of that negates that point that illegal purchases of firearms are also possible, so controlling legal sales to an extent needed to prevent this person, who had no criminal history and maybe no mental health record, would probably not meet 2nd Amendment requirements. Some states have very strict laws, but the weapons could still be acquired by anyone with enough desire, even in those states.
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)Even for me to get an permit to carry.NJ has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.I applied last year for a gun permit because I forgot to fill out some of the questions on the permit form
freethought
(2,457 posts)All he would have needed was the permit to purchase and own a handgun and/or rifle. That's all he needed to commit the act.
In committing a horrific act I don't think the goal of obtaining a concealed carry or even open carry permit was on his mind.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Given that he didn't obey Colorado's laws and is intelligent enough to get accepted into grad school, that's kind of a stretch IMO.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2018737338_shootingguns21.html
Suspected shooter bought guns legally, avoided gun-reporting requirement
The alleged gunman in the Aurora, Colo., theater massacre legally purchased two pistols, a semiautomatic rifle and a shotgun, avoiding federal reporting requirements and taking advantage of the state's failure to pass significant firearms legislation since the Columbine massacre 13 years ago.
The man police said was the gunman, James Holmes, 24, didn't purchase the handguns from the same store within five days, which would have triggered a requirement for the seller to notify the U.S. Justice Department, according to a federal official who spoke on condition of anonymity. Holmes hadn't committed any offenses that would have raised an alarm during required background checks, the official said.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)That's illegal in Colorado.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)Q.E.D.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)brentspeak
(18,290 posts)Thank you for admitting that it was far easier and safer for Holmes to legally obtain his weapons than had he tried to purchase them illegally. Very sporting of you.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Not a handgun.
Also as far as we know he had a clean record prior to this. What would an "in-depth" background check of accomplished?
Unless he was stupid enough to say "I intend to use these to commit a massacre" it wouldn't have mattered.
Also all his friends say he was nice, a bit shy, and they never would have thought he was capable of this. So interviewing them would have turned up nothing.
Also the murder rate in NJ is about double that of CO.
freethought
(2,457 posts)As many have said,
Even if he was in New Jersey
-no criminal record, not even misdemeanors
-no history of mental illness or violent behavior
-he was never institutionalized for any deviant behavior
-no history of arrest, for anything
-no ties to terrorists, violent groups, or organized crime in any way
-Sorry, but being labelled as shy, socially "off", nerdy, not outwardly polite or a "loner" does not necessarily raise any red flags against purchasing a gun even in New Jersey.
-He did purchase the guns at the same shop so no red flags were raised
-As far as the body armor he had, well, one can purchase that legally and it's not hard to find an outfit that will sell the stuff to you.
-He didn't commit the crime in New Jersey, rather, in Colorado. Like it or not. Even if he was in New Jersey it may have only taken him longer to put this all together as background checks were made and likely would have turned up nothing.
-Some allude to the fact he died his hair. Somehow I don't think this would have raised any alarms either. Some may have considered it odd but hardly a precursor to a massacre.