Give me a good reason why James "Joker" Holmes should have a gun?

[Nosmo King]

So rather than deny the insane, the gun lovers simply rationalize that freedom to bear arms extends to everyone regardless of public safety concerns. They must therefore believe that shooting sprees and gun deaths are nothing more than the price society must pay to maintain their freedom to own weapons suited for military use, not sport or defense.

Should all Americans agree with this stilted logic, or can common sense and public safety hold any priority at all?

What is your solution?

Owning a firearm is a Constitutionally protected right.

A right may not be denied without due process.

Abridgement of the Second Amendment should be subject to the same Prior Restraint restrictions guaranteed the First Amendment.

So how do you weed out the uncommitted dangerous or violent insane without infringing on the Constitutional right?

AND would this solution only serve to dissuade citizens who suffer from depression or the like from seeking ANY treatment, for fear of losing their right to self defense?

My short term solution is to apply through background checks to each and every gun sale. Impose a ten day waiting period after purchase to conduct the background check. Free up the data bases currently restricted under the NRA written guidelines so the mental and criminal history of the buyer can be scrutinized by responsible authorities.

And as Conservatives have found flexibility in the 4th amendment e.g. stop, question and frisk; similar flexibility can be found in the 2nd.

And I believe that the concerns over self defense among the clinically depressed are not worth the risk to public safety.

I wonder why public safety concerns are so easily dismissed by gun lovers? Drive by shootings, massacres in schools, theaters, temples and restaurants are not merely the price of an individual's 'freedom' to own a weapon designed for the battlefield, not for sport or defense. They are wholly avoidable tragedies if only the self proclaimed "responsible" gun owners would show their propensity for constitutional flexibility where other rights are concerned.

 

[martybegan]

So rather than deny the insane, the gun lovers simply rationalize that freedom to bear arms extends to everyone regardless of public safety concerns. They must therefore believe that shooting sprees and gun deaths are nothing more than the price society must pay to maintain their freedom to own weapons suited for military use, not sport or defense.

Should all Americans agree with this stilted logic, or can common sense and public safety hold any priority at all?

What is your solution?

Owning a firearm is a Constitutionally protected right.

A right may not be denied without due process.

Abridgement of the Second Amendment should be subject to the same Prior Restraint restrictions guaranteed the First Amendment.

So how do you weed out the uncommitted dangerous or violent insane without infringing on the Constitutional right?

AND would this solution only serve to dissuade citizens who suffer from depression or the like from seeking ANY treatment, for fear of losing their right to self defense?

My short term solution is to apply through background checks to each and every gun sale. Impose a ten day waiting period after purchase to conduct the background check. Free up the data bases currently restricted under the NRA written guidelines so the mental and criminal history of the buyer can be scrutinized by responsible authorities.

And as Conservatives have found flexibility in the 4th amendment e.g. stop, question and frisk; similar flexibility can be found in the 2nd.

And I believe that the concerns over self defense among the clinically depressed are not worth the risk to public safety.

I wonder why public safety concerns are so easily dismissed by gun lovers? Drive by shootings, massacres in schools, theaters, temples and restaurants are not merely the price of an individual's 'freedom' to own a weapon designed for the battlefield, not for sport or defense. They are wholly avoidable tragedies if only the self proclaimed "responsible" gun owners would show their propensity for constitutional flexibility where other rights are concerned.

Fine. during those 10 days the police become responsible for my safety. They have to post a 24 hour guard around me.

Also show me why a background check takes 10 days. I'm waiting.......

Also the whole "scrutinized by authorites" thing? No go. It has to be a definative conviction in a court of law or an adjudication due to mental defect. What you want is what we have in NYC where they can deny a person a CCW just because they "feel like it." The government cannot be given the power to arbitrarily decide who gets a gun or not.

Some burecratic asshole shouldnt be able to tell me I cannot exercise my 2nd amendment right to own a firearm.

 

[bripat9643]

Okay, throwdown time, Gun Whacks.

James "Joker Holmes. Crazy as batshit. Was able to buy and AR-15 and a drum magazine that held up to 100 rounds.

Everyone in his life knew he was batshit crazy.

Why should this person have the freedom to buy a gun.

No distractions about "founding fathers" or "he would have just gotten one illegally".

Please explain why THIS GUY should be allowed to buy a gun.

Why should his actions prevent me from buying a gun?

To answer your question, if everyone knew he was batshit crazy, why didnt someone he knew begin proceedings to have a judge consider him a threat, and thus put him on the "cant buy a gun list?"

It's always the gun's fault. It's never the fault of people.

 

[martybegan]

Okay, throwdown time, Gun Whacks.

James "Joker Holmes. Crazy as batshit. Was able to buy and AR-15 and a drum magazine that held up to 100 rounds.

Everyone in his life knew he was batshit crazy.

Why should this person have the freedom to buy a gun.

No distractions about "founding fathers" or "he would have just gotten one illegally".

Please explain why THIS GUY should be allowed to buy a gun.

Why should his actions prevent me from buying a gun?

To answer your question, if everyone knew he was batshit crazy, why didnt someone he knew begin proceedings to have a judge consider him a threat, and thus put him on the "cant buy a gun list?"

It's always the gun's fault. It's never the fault of people.

Better yet, someone else's bad actions should preclude ME from aquiring a firearm.

 

[Nosmo King]

What is your solution?

Owning a firearm is a Constitutionally protected right.

A right may not be denied without due process.

Abridgement of the Second Amendment should be subject to the same Prior Restraint restrictions guaranteed the First Amendment.

So how do you weed out the uncommitted dangerous or violent insane without infringing on the Constitutional right?

AND would this solution only serve to dissuade citizens who suffer from depression or the like from seeking ANY treatment, for fear of losing their right to self defense?

My short term solution is to apply through background checks to each and every gun sale. Impose a ten day waiting period after purchase to conduct the background check. Free up the data bases currently restricted under the NRA written guidelines so the mental and criminal history of the buyer can be scrutinized by responsible authorities.

And as Conservatives have found flexibility in the 4th amendment e.g. stop, question and frisk; similar flexibility can be found in the 2nd.

And I believe that the concerns over self defense among the clinically depressed are not worth the risk to public safety.

I wonder why public safety concerns are so easily dismissed by gun lovers? Drive by shootings, massacres in schools, theaters, temples and restaurants are not merely the price of an individual's 'freedom' to own a weapon designed for the battlefield, not for sport or defense. They are wholly avoidable tragedies if only the self proclaimed "responsible" gun owners would show their propensity for constitutional flexibility where other rights are concerned.

Fine. during those 10 days the police become responsible for my safety. They have to post a 24 hour guard around me.

Also show me why a background check takes 10 days. I'm waiting.......

Also the whole "scrutinized by authorites" thing? No go. It has to be a definative conviction in a court of law or an adjudication due to mental defect. What you want is what we have in NYC where they can deny a person a CCW just because they "feel like it." The government cannot be given the power to arbitrarily decide who gets a gun or not.

Some burecratic asshole shouldnt be able to tell me I cannot exercise my 2nd amendment right to own a firearm.

Some bureaucrat shouldn't tell me that my daughter has just been killed at school because a madmen bought a gun without his background check.

Who should scrutinize the background check? Would you water that portion of the regulations down so it becomes essentially ineffective?

And I'm sorry that you live in Baghdad where your safety is in jeopardy and a ten day waiting period poses a grave and imminent danger. One would have to believe that there is a gunman outside your front door right now! Go check! It's too dangerous to waste even the 13 seconds it takes to read the remainder of this post1

 

[martybegan]

My short term solution is to apply through background checks to each and every gun sale. Impose a ten day waiting period after purchase to conduct the background check. Free up the data bases currently restricted under the NRA written guidelines so the mental and criminal history of the buyer can be scrutinized by responsible authorities.

And as Conservatives have found flexibility in the 4th amendment e.g. stop, question and frisk; similar flexibility can be found in the 2nd.

And I believe that the concerns over self defense among the clinically depressed are not worth the risk to public safety.

I wonder why public safety concerns are so easily dismissed by gun lovers? Drive by shootings, massacres in schools, theaters, temples and restaurants are not merely the price of an individual's 'freedom' to own a weapon designed for the battlefield, not for sport or defense. They are wholly avoidable tragedies if only the self proclaimed "responsible" gun owners would show their propensity for constitutional flexibility where other rights are concerned.

Fine. during those 10 days the police become responsible for my safety. They have to post a 24 hour guard around me.

Also show me why a background check takes 10 days. I'm waiting.......

Also the whole "scrutinized by authorites" thing? No go. It has to be a definative conviction in a court of law or an adjudication due to mental defect. What you want is what we have in NYC where they can deny a person a CCW just because they "feel like it." The government cannot be given the power to arbitrarily decide who gets a gun or not.

Some burecratic asshole shouldnt be able to tell me I cannot exercise my 2nd amendment right to own a firearm.

Some bureaucrat shouldn't tell me that my daughter has just been killed at school because a madmen bought a gun without his background check.

Who should scrutinize the background check? Would you water that portion of the regulations down so it becomes essentially ineffective?

And I'm sorry that you live in Baghdad where your safety is in jeopardy and a ten day waiting period poses a grave and imminent danger. One would have to believe that there is a gunman outside your front door right now! Go check! It's too dangerous to waste even the 13 seconds it takes to read the remainder of this post1

Once again, arguing to emotion and the old THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!

Also, again, why should someones else's bad acts prevent ME from getting a firearm when I want one?

Only two reasons should exist for denying someone a firearm, felony conviction, and adjudication of mental defect. It takes 10 minutes to check for that, so why do you need 10days?

If you impose a 10 day waiting period on me, you should take responsibility for my safety. I wanted to do so by purchasing a firearm, but because YOU decide I have to wait, YOU need to provide the security.

Also, negged for being a whiny douche.

 

[Nosmo King]

Fine. during those 10 days the police become responsible for my safety. They have to post a 24 hour guard around me.

Also show me why a background check takes 10 days. I'm waiting.......

Also the whole "scrutinized by authorites" thing? No go. It has to be a definative conviction in a court of law or an adjudication due to mental defect. What you want is what we have in NYC where they can deny a person a CCW just because they "feel like it." The government cannot be given the power to arbitrarily decide who gets a gun or not.

Some burecratic asshole shouldnt be able to tell me I cannot exercise my 2nd amendment right to own a firearm.

Some bureaucrat shouldn't tell me that my daughter has just been killed at school because a madmen bought a gun without his background check.

Who should scrutinize the background check? Would you water that portion of the regulations down so it becomes essentially ineffective?

And I'm sorry that you live in Baghdad where your safety is in jeopardy and a ten day waiting period poses a grave and imminent danger. One would have to believe that there is a gunman outside your front door right now! Go check! It's too dangerous to waste even the 13 seconds it takes to read the remainder of this post1

Once again, arguing to emotion and the old THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!

Also, again, why should someones else's bad acts prevent ME from getting a firearm when I want one?

Only two reasons should exist for denying someone a firearm, felony conviction, and adjudication of mental defect. It takes 10 minutes to check for that, so why do you need 10days?

If you impose a 10 day waiting period on me, you should take responsibility for my safety. I wanted to do so by purchasing a firearm, but because YOU decide I have to wait, YOU need to provide the security.

Also, negged for being a whiny douche.

Somebody has to be looking out for the children. Their livers arte not the price we pay so you can get that gun RIGHT NOW DAMMIT! I NEED IT NOW!!!!

Thank God there are responsible citizens who believe as I do without the total disregard for public safety because waiting for a gun is inconvenient.

 

[martybegan]

Some bureaucrat shouldn't tell me that my daughter has just been killed at school because a madmen bought a gun without his background check.

Who should scrutinize the background check? Would you water that portion of the regulations down so it becomes essentially ineffective?

And I'm sorry that you live in Baghdad where your safety is in jeopardy and a ten day waiting period poses a grave and imminent danger. One would have to believe that there is a gunman outside your front door right now! Go check! It's too dangerous to waste even the 13 seconds it takes to read the remainder of this post1

Once again, arguing to emotion and the old THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!

Also, again, why should someones else's bad acts prevent ME from getting a firearm when I want one?

Only two reasons should exist for denying someone a firearm, felony conviction, and adjudication of mental defect. It takes 10 minutes to check for that, so why do you need 10days?

If you impose a 10 day waiting period on me, you should take responsibility for my safety. I wanted to do so by purchasing a firearm, but because YOU decide I have to wait, YOU need to provide the security.

Also, negged for being a whiny douche.

Somebody has to be looking out for the children. Their livers arte not the price we pay so you can get that gun RIGHT NOW DAMMIT! I NEED IT NOW!!!!

Thank God there are responsible citizens who believe as I do without the total disregard for public safety because waiting for a gun is inconvenient.

and how does my waiting for a gun help the situation? I dont plan on shooting anyone.

You are not responsible. you are a gutless coward who will not admit that what you really want is a disarmed citizenry. You want our police to be the knights of old, the only ones with the privlidge to be able to defend themselves.

you are also an idiot that can't fathom that criminals will get guns no matter what, and all you are doing is screwing over law abiding citizens.

You are pond scum, nothing more, because you resort to emotional response that has nothing to do with reasons to infringe on my rights.

 

[Nosmo King]

Once again, arguing to emotion and the old THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!

Also, again, why should someones else's bad acts prevent ME from getting a firearm when I want one?

Only two reasons should exist for denying someone a firearm, felony conviction, and adjudication of mental defect. It takes 10 minutes to check for that, so why do you need 10days?

If you impose a 10 day waiting period on me, you should take responsibility for my safety. I wanted to do so by purchasing a firearm, but because YOU decide I have to wait, YOU need to provide the security.

Also, negged for being a whiny douche.

Somebody has to be looking out for the children. Their livers arte not the price we pay so you can get that gun RIGHT NOW DAMMIT! I NEED IT NOW!!!!

Thank God there are responsible citizens who believe as I do without the total disregard for public safety because waiting for a gun is inconvenient.

and how does my waiting for a gun help the situation? I dont plan on shooting anyone.

You are not responsible. you are a gutless coward who will not admit that what you really want is a disarmed citizenry. You want our police to be the knights of old, the only ones with the privlidge to be able to defend themselves.

you are also an idiot that can't fathom that criminals will get guns no matter what, and all you are doing is screwing over law abiding citizens.

You are pond scum, nothing more, because you resort to emotional response that has nothing to do with reasons to infringe on my rights.

Gee! Thanks! I'm an idiot, a coward, pond scum and gutless. And you chastised me for arguing through emotion. Thank you for the primer on how to avoid emotion! You are a true master.

My aim is not to rid America of firearms. I own a shotgun. I would however rid America of high capacity ammunition magazines because those put the "mass" in "mass shootings". I would rid America of all semi-automatic firing systems. Bolt action rifles, six shot revolvers, pump action shotguns would still be permitted, but assault weapons would be melted into wheelchairs and burial vaults. Guns with barrels shorter than six inches would also be banned as they provide nothing but concealment for criminals.

And every gun owner should be required to take an eight hour safety course before any gun is passed into their hands. Let's put the 'responsibility' back in responsible gun owners.

And I claim all this openly without packing heat and without fear from the armed hillbillies who have no forethought yet consider the deaths of innocents as the cost of owning a gun in America.

 

[martybegan]

Somebody has to be looking out for the children. Their livers arte not the price we pay so you can get that gun RIGHT NOW DAMMIT! I NEED IT NOW!!!!

Thank God there are responsible citizens who believe as I do without the total disregard for public safety because waiting for a gun is inconvenient.

and how does my waiting for a gun help the situation? I dont plan on shooting anyone.

You are not responsible. you are a gutless coward who will not admit that what you really want is a disarmed citizenry. You want our police to be the knights of old, the only ones with the privlidge to be able to defend themselves.

you are also an idiot that can't fathom that criminals will get guns no matter what, and all you are doing is screwing over law abiding citizens.

You are pond scum, nothing more, because you resort to emotional response that has nothing to do with reasons to infringe on my rights.

Gee! Thanks! I'm an idiot, a coward, pond scum and gutless. And you chastised me for arguing through emotion. Thank you for the primer on how to avoid emotion! You are a true master.

My aim is not to rid America of firearms. I own a shotgun. I would however rid America of high capacity ammunition magazines because those put the "mass" in "mass shootings". I would rid America of all semi-automatic firing systems. Bolt action rifles, six shot revolvers, pump action shotguns would still be permitted, but assault weapons would be melted into wheelchairs and burial vaults. Guns with barrels shorter than six inches would also be banned as they provide nothing but concealment for criminals.

And every gun owner should be required to take an eight hour safety course before any gun is passed into their hands. Let's put the 'responsibility' back in responsible gun owners.

And I claim all this openly without packing heat and without fear from the armed hillbillies who have no forethought yet consider the deaths of innocents as the cost of owning a gun in America.

The name calling is to add some spice to a thread when nothing is occuring except the same point being volleyed back and forth like a tennis match.

The anger however, is due to your typical liberal approach to a problem. The need to DO SOMETHING without seeing if doing it will actually help. None of the things you propose will prevent criminals from having access to whatever weapon they choose. All it does it put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage against people who dont give a rats ass about laws. By going with the "single shot click pump whatever" argument you show you have no concept of how technology, once invented, cannot be un-invented. that someone with rudimentary machining experience and the right tools can make even your neutered weapons into something on your illegal list, and how if someone wants one bad, they will get it.

Considering Mike bloomberg is a proponent of gun control, using his mentality is a fine example. You, like bloomberg are a busybody nannyist. If even a small group of people can't deal with something then everyone has to get shafted. Some people use guns criminally, we all have to be restricted, some people are fat, all of us cant drink from cups over 16 oz. Its the easy way to pretend you are doing something about a problem without really doing what is REALLY needed.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

How do you define an "assault weapon" Nosmo? Is it a "scary" looking gun? Is it something like you saw on television? What exactly is a "High capacity magazine"?

When fruitcake walked into the movie theater he had a bag full of guns and a room full of targets. If he had a couple of shotguns (legal even in your utopian world) he could still have killed just as many, if not more (due to increased lethality at close range).

Same thing with many of the school shootings.

Oh, yeah, and then there was the nutcase who stabbed everyone in the island camp in Norway (??)...are you going to ban knives as well?

Grow up. Bad things are going to happen to people no matter how many rules you put in place.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hey joe here's one for you
Give me one good reason why we have gun free zones? They don't work.

 

[Nosmo King]

How do you define an "assault weapon" Nosmo? Is it a "scary" looking gun? Is it something like you saw on television? What exactly is a "High capacity magazine"?

When fruitcake walked into the movie theater he had a bag full of guns and a room full of targets. If he had a couple of shotguns (legal even in your utopian world) he could still have killed just as many, if not more (due to increased lethality at close range).

Same thing with many of the school shootings.

Oh, yeah, and then there was the nutcase who stabbed everyone in the island camp in Norway (??)...are you going to ban knives as well?

Grow up. Bad things are going to happen to people no matter how many rules you put in place.

I define assault weapons as:

1) A firearm with a semi-automatic firing system.

2) A firearm capable of being fitted with a high capacity magazine*

*High capacity magazine~ a clip or mechanism that feeds more than ten (10) rounds of ammunition into the chamber.

These are the accoutrement that make "mass shootings" "mass shootings".

These are weapons designed for a theater of war, not a Cineplex in the suburbs. They have no legitimate place on our streets. They belong in "well regulated militias" (a phrase so easily dismissed by gun lovers).

And there's the slender reed gun lovers all too often try feebly to hang their arguments upon: would you ban knives as well? The corollary often extends to cars, swimming pools, hatchets and other tools not designed to throw lethal lead out at amazing rapidity.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Okay, throwdown time, Gun Whacks.

James "Joker Holmes. Crazy as batshit. Was able to buy and AR-15 and a drum magazine that held up to 100 rounds.

Everyone in his life knew he was batshit crazy.

Why should this person have the freedom to buy a gun.

No distractions about "founding fathers" or "he would have just gotten one illegally".

Please explain why THIS GUY should be allowed to buy a gun.

'cus he wanted one

Seriously, ask any of the gun nutters what "controls" should be put on buying any and all guns you want and they'll tell you none.

They WANT illegals and terrorists and criminals and crazies to be able to buy any gun they want, any where they want and any time they want.

But not blacks.

 

[Nosmo King]

Okay, throwdown time, Gun Whacks.

James "Joker Holmes. Crazy as batshit. Was able to buy and AR-15 and a drum magazine that held up to 100 rounds.

Everyone in his life knew he was batshit crazy.

Why should this person have the freedom to buy a gun.

No distractions about "founding fathers" or "he would have just gotten one illegally".

Please explain why THIS GUY should be allowed to buy a gun.

'cus he wanted one

Seriously, ask any of the gun nutters what "controls" should be put on buying any and all guns you want and they'll tell you none.

They WANT illegals and terrorists and criminals and crazies to be able to buy any gun they want, any where they want and any time they want.

But not blacks.

I disagree. It's always a sticky wicket to ascribe motive to a political group. It seldom reveals truth, and all too often serves only to obfuscate and distract. No one but criminals and illegals and crazies want to have absolutely no restrictions on gun ownership.

Conservatives see the problem, but approach solutions from a different path. They want to be assured that their rights are not infringed, but they provide no solution to the problems of gun violence other than a call to arms.

Many gun lovers have had nothing but positive outcomes from their hobby. While the parents of slain students, innocent bystanders and massacred attendees at movies and temples have had nothing but agony after the unnecessary brutality wrought upon their houses. Gun lovers want to be able to scratch that Rambo itch whenever their manhood needs a boost. But that scratch is too costly in terms of public safety to go unabated.

I just wish some gun lover would offer up some common sense solution and not the same old 'stick 'em up' responses.

 

[chikenwing]

Because his free speech isn't going to kill anyone. I mean, he can sit there and do his best Heath ledger impersonation all day.

But no one is going to die.

Again, we aren't arguing about whether he has a right, we are arguing about whether it is a good idea.

Fascist believe that an unarmed citizenry is the greatest idea ever

That wasn't the issue being discussed.

Let's try again.

Joker Holmes. Batshit crazy. Still able to buy guns.

Why is that a good idea?

Its not numskull nobody is saying it is,try again

 

[chikenwing]

But the Gunmakers see him as a prime market, since they can't be held legally responsible for what he does.

You always have such a ignorant position?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Okay, throwdown time, Gun Whacks.

James "Joker Holmes. Crazy as batshit. Was able to buy and AR-15 and a drum magazine that held up to 100 rounds.

Everyone in his life knew he was batshit crazy.

Why should this person have the freedom to buy a gun.

No distractions about "founding fathers" or "he would have just gotten one illegally".

Please explain why THIS GUY should be allowed to buy a gun.

Everyone on this board knows you are batshit crazy, should we take away your right to vote? William Jefferson Clinton has stated that it should be just as easy to vote as it is to buy an assault weapon. Considering that voting doesn't require a background check, or ID, or a certificate of mental health from the government, I don't know what the fuck he is talking about, but I am just as capable of ranting as you are, and mine actually make sense.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You may be on to something, why should he be allowed free speech too, why should he have a right to privacy?

o/

Because his free speech isn't going to kill anyone. I mean, he can sit there and do his best Heath ledger impersonation all day.

But no one is going to die.

Again, we aren't arguing about whether he has a right, we are arguing about whether it is a good idea.

Is it a good idea to take away people's rights based on hindsight? Probably not, even if you can explain how that works.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Since he was crazy he should of been locked up in a state hospital.

I agree, he should have been, but you guys on the right have been slashing money for that since the 1980's...

And the left has been fighting tooth and nail against involuntary commitments.

I'd like to have all the crazy people off the streets.

but failing that, what good reason is there for him to be able to have a gun?

One good thing that came out of it, you get to use him as an example of why no one should have a gun.

Wait, that isn't good after all, yet you are still doing it. I guess that makes you the idiot here.