Police knew that the El Paso shooter had an ak47 and that he intended to use it, but did nothing

[pknopp]

His family thought he was a little immature to own the gun. Well we can't just go around locking people up with the thought police. We live in a country that gives us rights. It's kind of funny that the OP is the same kind of person that argues for the rights of the 2nd Amendment, but then as an armchair quarterback posts something negative about cops for not violating the shooter's 2nd Amendment rights to legally own the gun.

That isn't the argument. James Holmes threatened his therapists life. That looks to be a crime in Colorado. His therapist testified in court that she could not get anyone to do anything.

There is a good argument there that James Holmes should have been arrested and all that goes with that.

We do not know all the reasons this guys mom called. Maybe a visit by someone trained in things like this could have better explained her call. Maybe not. The argument is not that we can stop every single person intent on harming others. The argument is whether we are doing enough where we can.

This thread isn't about James Holmes. It's about the El Paso shooter and his mom didn't say he threatened to shoot anyone. She said she thought he was too immature and inexperienced to own one. He is 21 and he is legal able to buy and own one. Law enforcement had NO REASON to take his gun.

It is absolutely AMAZING how some of the strong 2nd Amendment supporters on this forum not only don't know how the 2nd Amendment works, but also suddenly lose their fervor for a citizen's rights after-the-fact.

The discussion is around what we can do to try and stop some of the violence but you are a perfect example of what I said. We are not interested in that discussion. We simply will prefer to put what we perceive as the other side down. We saw that happen in this thread also.

Fortunately many of us 2nd Amendment supporters understand how the Constitution works as a whole.

 

[Lewdog]

His family thought he was a little immature to own the gun. Well we can't just go around locking people up with the thought police. We live in a country that gives us rights. It's kind of funny that the OP is the same kind of person that argues for the rights of the 2nd Amendment, but then as an armchair quarterback posts something negative about cops for not violating the shooter's 2nd Amendment rights to legally own the gun.

That isn't the argument. James Holmes threatened his therapists life. That looks to be a crime in Colorado. His therapist testified in court that she could not get anyone to do anything.

There is a good argument there that James Holmes should have been arrested and all that goes with that.

We do not know all the reasons this guys mom called. Maybe a visit by someone trained in things like this could have better explained her call. Maybe not. The argument is not that we can stop every single person intent on harming others. The argument is whether we are doing enough where we can.

This thread isn't about James Holmes. It's about the El Paso shooter and his mom didn't say he threatened to shoot anyone. She said she thought he was too immature and inexperienced to own one. He is 21 and he is legal able to buy and own one. Law enforcement had NO REASON to take his gun.

It is absolutely AMAZING how some of the strong 2nd Amendment supporters on this forum not only don't know how the 2nd Amendment works, but also suddenly lose their fervor for a citizen's rights after-the-fact.

The discussion is around what we can do to try and stop some of the violence but you are a perfect example of what I said. We are not interested in that discussion. We simply will prefer to put what we perceive as the other side down. We saw that happen in this thread also.

Fortunately many of us 2nd Amendment supporters understand how the Constitution works as a whole.

No, the discussion when I posted is about the OP trying to demean the police for not taking the mass shooter's gun when they had no right to. He had made NO THREATS yet to shoot anyone, and his mother just said she thought he was too immature and inexperienced at shooting guns to have it. Well the police did the right thing at the time telling her he is old enough to purchase and own it, and there is nothing they can do because it is his RIGHT to own it.

If you want to talk about James Holmes and others that did give warning ahead of time that they shouldn't own a gun, start a new thread or something. My comment was way before you went off on a tangent.

 

[OldLady]

You didn't answer my question. Having "a class" on dealing with the mentally ill is not being trained on how to deal with the mentally ill and there are examples all the time where it's obvious many do not know how to.

How much corroborating evidence do you require?

If you need more evidence than 32 bodies you are a piece of shit from the whacko nra

A mother calling anonymously and saying her son was "immature" and untrained in heavy fire power guns does not constitute "mental illness." You cannot factually tie this phone call to the cops goofing up due to a lack of mental health training. They asked her twice if he was suicidal or had threatened others, and to her knowledge, the answer was no..

A mother is not required to say her kid is unstable nor should she have to. She did the right thing. You failed her

I did? How?

By fighting not to have change. See this shooting is actually old news and no different from florida

What changes did I oppose? What you are (erroneously) posing as a situation is very different from Stoneman Douglas. That young man had so many red flags that he looked like a parade float. THAT was indeed a failure, but more on the shoulders of the mental health community than L.E. Yes, the FBI could have looked into him; that was, in retrospect, a bad call, but no one has a crystal ball, not even you.

 

[pismoe]

His family thought he was a little immature to own the gun. Well we can't just go around locking people up with the thought police. We live in a country that gives us rights. It's kind of funny that the OP is the same kind of person that argues for the rights of the 2nd Amendment, but then as an armchair quarterback posts something negative about cops for not violating the shooter's 2nd Amendment rights to legally own the gun.

That isn't the argument. James Holmes threatened his therapists life. That looks to be a crime in Colorado. His therapist testified in court that she could not get anyone to do anything.

There is a good argument there that James Holmes should have been arrested and all that goes with that.

We do not know all the reasons this guys mom called. Maybe a visit by someone trained in things like this could have better explained her call. Maybe not. The argument is not that we can stop every single person intent on harming others. The argument is whether we are doing enough where we can.

This thread isn't about James Holmes. It's about the El Paso shooter and his mom didn't say he threatened to shoot anyone. She said she thought he was too immature and inexperienced to own one. He is 21 and he is legal able to buy and own one. Law enforcement had NO REASON to take his gun.

It is absolutely AMAZING how some of the strong 2nd Amendment supporters on this forum not only don't know how the 2nd Amendment works, but also suddenly lose their fervor for a citizen's rights after-the-fact.

---------------------------------------- guess that they aren't strong supporter Lew , Perhaps their emotion have got them by the Nuts Lew . They yearn for SAFETY over Freedom Lewdog .

 

[pismoe]

If you need more evidence than 32 bodies you are a piece of shit from the whacko nra

A mother calling anonymously and saying her son was "immature" and untrained in heavy fire power guns does not constitute "mental illness." You cannot factually tie this phone call to the cops goofing up due to a lack of mental health training. They asked her twice if he was suicidal or had threatened others, and to her knowledge, the answer was no..

A mother is not required to say her kid is unstable nor should she have to. She did the right thing. You failed her

I did? How?

By fighting not to have change. See this shooting is actually old news and no different from florida

What changes did I oppose? What you are (erroneously) posing as a situation is very different from Stoneman Douglas. That young man had so many red flags that he looked like a parade float. THAT was indeed a failure, but more on the shoulders of the mental health community than L.E. Yes, the FBI could have looked into him; that was, in retrospect, a bad call, but no one has a crystal ball, not even you.

-------------------------think it was due to 'mrobamas' trying to stop the 'school to prison' pipe line on minority students so his policy kept Police involvement out of the picture OldLady .

 

[pknopp]

His family thought he was a little immature to own the gun. Well we can't just go around locking people up with the thought police. We live in a country that gives us rights. It's kind of funny that the OP is the same kind of person that argues for the rights of the 2nd Amendment, but then as an armchair quarterback posts something negative about cops for not violating the shooter's 2nd Amendment rights to legally own the gun.

That isn't the argument. James Holmes threatened his therapists life. That looks to be a crime in Colorado. His therapist testified in court that she could not get anyone to do anything.

There is a good argument there that James Holmes should have been arrested and all that goes with that.

We do not know all the reasons this guys mom called. Maybe a visit by someone trained in things like this could have better explained her call. Maybe not. The argument is not that we can stop every single person intent on harming others. The argument is whether we are doing enough where we can.

This thread isn't about James Holmes. It's about the El Paso shooter and his mom didn't say he threatened to shoot anyone. She said she thought he was too immature and inexperienced to own one. He is 21 and he is legal able to buy and own one. Law enforcement had NO REASON to take his gun.

It is absolutely AMAZING how some of the strong 2nd Amendment supporters on this forum not only don't know how the 2nd Amendment works, but also suddenly lose their fervor for a citizen's rights after-the-fact.

The discussion is around what we can do to try and stop some of the violence but you are a perfect example of what I said. We are not interested in that discussion. We simply will prefer to put what we perceive as the other side down. We saw that happen in this thread also.

Fortunately many of us 2nd Amendment supporters understand how the Constitution works as a whole.

No, the discussion when I posted is about the OP trying to demean the police for not taking the mass shooter's gun when they had no right to. He had made NO THREATS yet to shoot anyone, and his mother just said she thought he was too immature and inexperienced at shooting guns to have it. Well the police did the right thing at the time telling her he is old enough to purchase and own it, and there is nothing they can do because it is his RIGHT to own it.

If you want to talk about James Holmes and others that did give warning ahead of time that they shouldn't own a gun, start a new thread or something. My comment was way before you went off on a tangent.

We still do not know whether or not the right things was done here. IMO it wasn't as IMO someone should have been sent out to talk to the mother about her concerns. A mother very well could say "immature" when her concerns are far more.

 

[pismoe]

A mother calling anonymously and saying her son was "immature" and untrained in heavy fire power guns does not constitute "mental illness." You cannot factually tie this phone call to the cops goofing up due to a lack of mental health training. They asked her twice if he was suicidal or had threatened others, and to her knowledge, the answer was no..

A mother is not required to say her kid is unstable nor should she have to. She did the right thing. You failed her

I did? How?

By fighting not to have change. See this shooting is actually old news and no different from florida

What changes did I oppose? What you are (erroneously) posing as a situation is very different from Stoneman Douglas. That young man had so many red flags that he looked like a parade float. THAT was indeed a failure, but more on the shoulders of the mental health community than L.E. Yes, the FBI could have looked into him; that was, in retrospect, a bad call, but no one has a crystal ball, not even you.

-------------------------think it was due to 'mrobamas' trying to stop the 'school to prison' pipe line on minority students so his policy kept Police involvement out of the picture OldLady .

------------------------------------- here is some info on 'mrobamas' policy affectin the school shooting at Marjorie Stoneman OldLady . --- Obama policies to end ‘schoolhouse-to-jailhouse pipeline’ helped keep Nikolas Cruz off police radar ---

 

[Wry Catcher]

His family thought he was a little immature to own the gun. Well we can't just go around locking people up with the thought police. We live in a country that gives us rights. It's kind of funny that the OP is the same kind of person that argues for the rights of the 2nd Amendment, but then as an armchair quarterback posts something negative about cops for not violating the shooter's 2nd Amendment rights to legally own the gun.

That isn't the argument. James Holmes threatened his therapists life. That looks to be a crime in Colorado. His therapist testified in court that she could not get anyone to do anything.

There is a good argument there that James Holmes should have been arrested and all that goes with that.

We do not know all the reasons this guys mom called. Maybe a visit by someone trained in things like this could have better explained her call. Maybe not. The argument is not that we can stop every single person intent on harming others. The argument is whether we are doing enough where we can.

This thread isn't about James Holmes. It's about the El Paso shooter and his mom didn't say he threatened to shoot anyone. She said she thought he was too immature and inexperienced to own one. He is 21 and he is legal able to buy and own one. Law enforcement had NO REASON to take his gun.

It is absolutely AMAZING how some of the strong 2nd Amendment supporters on this forum not only don't know how the 2nd Amendment works, but also suddenly lose their fervor for a citizen's rights after-the-fact.

The discussion is around what we can do to try and stop some of the violence but you are a perfect example of what I said. We are not interested in that discussion. We simply will prefer to put what we perceive as the other side down. We saw that happen in this thread also.

Fortunately many of us 2nd Amendment supporters understand how the Constitution works as a whole.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

Art I, Sec. 8, Clause 15 & 16 are explicit, the above is ambiguous.

Clause 18, "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into the Execution the foregoing powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Is it necessary and proper to regulate arms? It's clear that the Brady Bill was necessary and proper exercise of the powers vested by COTUS and yet allowed to sunset.

It seems the last week, in fact this year alone, mass murders by an ARM killed many innocent people; rational thinkers believe such arms - created to kill large number so human beings in less than a minute - ought to be restricted to LE (SWAT) and the Militia in each state.

 

[pismoe]

His family thought he was a little immature to own the gun. Well we can't just go around locking people up with the thought police. We live in a country that gives us rights. It's kind of funny that the OP is the same kind of person that argues for the rights of the 2nd Amendment, but then as an armchair quarterback posts something negative about cops for not violating the shooter's 2nd Amendment rights to legally own the gun.

That isn't the argument. James Holmes threatened his therapists life. That looks to be a crime in Colorado. His therapist testified in court that she could not get anyone to do anything.

There is a good argument there that James Holmes should have been arrested and all that goes with that.

We do not know all the reasons this guys mom called. Maybe a visit by someone trained in things like this could have better explained her call. Maybe not. The argument is not that we can stop every single person intent on harming others. The argument is whether we are doing enough where we can.

This thread isn't about James Holmes. It's about the El Paso shooter and his mom didn't say he threatened to shoot anyone. She said she thought he was too immature and inexperienced to own one. He is 21 and he is legal able to buy and own one. Law enforcement had NO REASON to take his gun.

It is absolutely AMAZING how some of the strong 2nd Amendment supporters on this forum not only don't know how the 2nd Amendment works, but also suddenly lose their fervor for a citizen's rights after-the-fact.

The discussion is around what we can do to try and stop some of the violence but you are a perfect example of what I said. We are not interested in that discussion. We simply will prefer to put what we perceive as the other side down. We saw that happen in this thread also.

Fortunately many of us 2nd Amendment supporters understand how the Constitution works as a whole.

No, the discussion when I posted is about the OP trying to demean the police for not taking the mass shooter's gun when they had no right to. He had made NO THREATS yet to shoot anyone, and his mother just said she thought he was too immature and inexperienced at shooting guns to have it. Well the police did the right thing at the time telling her he is old enough to purchase and own it, and there is nothing they can do because it is his RIGHT to own it.

If you want to talk about James Holmes and others that did give warning ahead of time that they shouldn't own a gun, start a new thread or something. My comment was way before you went off on a tangent.

----------------------------------------- first mention I saw about 'j.holmes was by a different poster who was talking about 'j. holmes' and his 'head doktor' and threats made to her it or him or other . Something about threats . And I only responded to that new info / post but I didn't bring it up .

 

[debbiedowner]

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/08/07/us/el-paso-crusius-gun-warning/index.html

As usual there were tips in place to law enforcement who were felt it more important not to miss their meeting at the donut shop.

CIAO

Why in the heck would you say such a thing?

Your linked article explains the call, and your evil stoking comment is the problem with the world today...

If the police cant stop mass killings when they have the name of the killer before, the police are useless.

You cannot read very well.

They had the mothers phone number and name.

Enter reality kid

Just how do you know?

 

[debbiedowner]

His family thought he was a little immature to own the gun. Well we can't just go around locking people up with the thought police. We live in a country that gives us rights. It's kind of funny that the OP is the same kind of person that argues for the rights of the 2nd Amendment, but then as an armchair quarterback posts something negative about cops for not violating the shooter's 2nd Amendment rights to legally own the gun.

That isn't the argument. James Holmes threatened his therapists life. That looks to be a crime in Colorado. His therapist testified in court that she could not get anyone to do anything.

There is a good argument there that James Holmes should have been arrested and all that goes with that.

We do not know all the reasons this guys mom called. Maybe a visit by someone trained in things like this could have better explained her call. Maybe not. The argument is not that we can stop every single person intent on harming others. The argument is whether we are doing enough where we can.

This thread isn't about James Holmes. It's about the El Paso shooter and his mom didn't say he threatened to shoot anyone. She said she thought he was too immature and inexperienced to own one. He is 21 and he is legal able to buy and own one. Law enforcement had NO REASON to take his gun.

It is absolutely AMAZING how some of the strong 2nd Amendment supporters on this forum not only don't know how the 2nd Amendment works, but also suddenly lose their fervor for a citizen's rights after-the-fact.

The discussion is around what we can do to try and stop some of the violence but you are a perfect example of what I said. We are not interested in that discussion. We simply will prefer to put what we perceive as the other side down. We saw that happen in this thread also.

Fortunately many of us 2nd Amendment supporters understand how the Constitution works as a whole.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

Art I, Sec. 8, Clause 15 & 16 are explicit, the above is ambiguous.

Clause 18, "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into the Execution the foregoing powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Is it necessary and proper to regulate arms? It's clear that the Brady Bill was necessary and proper exercise of the powers vested by COTUS and yet allowed to sunset.

It seems the last week, in fact this year alone, mass murders by an ARM killed many innocent people; rational thinkers believe such arms - created to kill large number so human beings in less than a minute - ought to be restricted to LE (SWAT) and the Militia in each state.

come on man you know they can only read certain words, why bother.

 

[pismoe]

seems to me that any time the police are called that there is a RECORD in these new fangled days of the 21st Century Deb Downer .

 

[Lewdog]

His family thought he was a little immature to own the gun. Well we can't just go around locking people up with the thought police. We live in a country that gives us rights. It's kind of funny that the OP is the same kind of person that argues for the rights of the 2nd Amendment, but then as an armchair quarterback posts something negative about cops for not violating the shooter's 2nd Amendment rights to legally own the gun.

That isn't the argument. James Holmes threatened his therapists life. That looks to be a crime in Colorado. His therapist testified in court that she could not get anyone to do anything.

There is a good argument there that James Holmes should have been arrested and all that goes with that.

We do not know all the reasons this guys mom called. Maybe a visit by someone trained in things like this could have better explained her call. Maybe not. The argument is not that we can stop every single person intent on harming others. The argument is whether we are doing enough where we can.

This thread isn't about James Holmes. It's about the El Paso shooter and his mom didn't say he threatened to shoot anyone. She said she thought he was too immature and inexperienced to own one. He is 21 and he is legal able to buy and own one. Law enforcement had NO REASON to take his gun.

It is absolutely AMAZING how some of the strong 2nd Amendment supporters on this forum not only don't know how the 2nd Amendment works, but also suddenly lose their fervor for a citizen's rights after-the-fact.

The discussion is around what we can do to try and stop some of the violence but you are a perfect example of what I said. We are not interested in that discussion. We simply will prefer to put what we perceive as the other side down. We saw that happen in this thread also.

Fortunately many of us 2nd Amendment supporters understand how the Constitution works as a whole.

No, the discussion when I posted is about the OP trying to demean the police for not taking the mass shooter's gun when they had no right to. He had made NO THREATS yet to shoot anyone, and his mother just said she thought he was too immature and inexperienced at shooting guns to have it. Well the police did the right thing at the time telling her he is old enough to purchase and own it, and there is nothing they can do because it is his RIGHT to own it.

If you want to talk about James Holmes and others that did give warning ahead of time that they shouldn't own a gun, start a new thread or something. My comment was way before you went off on a tangent.

We still do not know whether or not the right things was done here. IMO it wasn't as IMO someone should have been sent out to talk to the mother about her concerns. A mother very well could say "immature" when her concerns are far more.

WE DO KNOW. Sadly sometimes you can do all the right things and still things go to shit. Nothing in life is certain.

 

[pknopp]

His family thought he was a little immature to own the gun. Well we can't just go around locking people up with the thought police. We live in a country that gives us rights. It's kind of funny that the OP is the same kind of person that argues for the rights of the 2nd Amendment, but then as an armchair quarterback posts something negative about cops for not violating the shooter's 2nd Amendment rights to legally own the gun.

That isn't the argument. James Holmes threatened his therapists life. That looks to be a crime in Colorado. His therapist testified in court that she could not get anyone to do anything.

There is a good argument there that James Holmes should have been arrested and all that goes with that.

We do not know all the reasons this guys mom called. Maybe a visit by someone trained in things like this could have better explained her call. Maybe not. The argument is not that we can stop every single person intent on harming others. The argument is whether we are doing enough where we can.

This thread isn't about James Holmes. It's about the El Paso shooter and his mom didn't say he threatened to shoot anyone. She said she thought he was too immature and inexperienced to own one. He is 21 and he is legal able to buy and own one. Law enforcement had NO REASON to take his gun.

It is absolutely AMAZING how some of the strong 2nd Amendment supporters on this forum not only don't know how the 2nd Amendment works, but also suddenly lose their fervor for a citizen's rights after-the-fact.

The discussion is around what we can do to try and stop some of the violence but you are a perfect example of what I said. We are not interested in that discussion. We simply will prefer to put what we perceive as the other side down. We saw that happen in this thread also.

Fortunately many of us 2nd Amendment supporters understand how the Constitution works as a whole.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

Art I, Sec. 8, Clause 15 & 16 are explicit, the above is ambiguous.

Clause 18, "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into the Execution the foregoing powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Is it necessary and proper to regulate arms? It's clear that the Brady Bill was necessary and proper exercise of the powers vested by COTUS and yet allowed to sunset.

It seems the last week, in fact this year alone, mass murders by an ARM killed many innocent people; rational thinkers believe such arms - created to kill large number so human beings in less than a minute - ought to be restricted to LE (SWAT) and the Militia in each state.

You are allowed to think that. We will have to see what the courts say but there is no mistake about it that if those who do support the 2nd continue to dismiss every other possible avenue to address this issue, people one way or the other are going to restrict their rights.

 

[pknopp]

That isn't the argument. James Holmes threatened his therapists life. That looks to be a crime in Colorado. His therapist testified in court that she could not get anyone to do anything.

There is a good argument there that James Holmes should have been arrested and all that goes with that.

We do not know all the reasons this guys mom called. Maybe a visit by someone trained in things like this could have better explained her call. Maybe not. The argument is not that we can stop every single person intent on harming others. The argument is whether we are doing enough where we can.

This thread isn't about James Holmes. It's about the El Paso shooter and his mom didn't say he threatened to shoot anyone. She said she thought he was too immature and inexperienced to own one. He is 21 and he is legal able to buy and own one. Law enforcement had NO REASON to take his gun.

It is absolutely AMAZING how some of the strong 2nd Amendment supporters on this forum not only don't know how the 2nd Amendment works, but also suddenly lose their fervor for a citizen's rights after-the-fact.

The discussion is around what we can do to try and stop some of the violence but you are a perfect example of what I said. We are not interested in that discussion. We simply will prefer to put what we perceive as the other side down. We saw that happen in this thread also.

Fortunately many of us 2nd Amendment supporters understand how the Constitution works as a whole.

No, the discussion when I posted is about the OP trying to demean the police for not taking the mass shooter's gun when they had no right to. He had made NO THREATS yet to shoot anyone, and his mother just said she thought he was too immature and inexperienced at shooting guns to have it. Well the police did the right thing at the time telling her he is old enough to purchase and own it, and there is nothing they can do because it is his RIGHT to own it.

If you want to talk about James Holmes and others that did give warning ahead of time that they shouldn't own a gun, start a new thread or something. My comment was way before you went off on a tangent.

We still do not know whether or not the right things was done here. IMO it wasn't as IMO someone should have been sent out to talk to the mother about her concerns. A mother very well could say "immature" when her concerns are far more.

WE DO KNOW. Sadly sometimes you can do all the right things and still things go to shit. Nothing in life is certain.

I never argued otherwise, I am arguing that we are not doing all that we can. If we do not do the right things people are going to insist we do things that will not matter.

 

[pismoe]

His family thought he was a little immature to own the gun. Well we can't just go around locking people up with the thought police. We live in a country that gives us rights. It's kind of funny that the OP is the same kind of person that argues for the rights of the 2nd Amendment, but then as an armchair quarterback posts something negative about cops for not violating the shooter's 2nd Amendment rights to legally own the gun.

That isn't the argument. James Holmes threatened his therapists life. That looks to be a crime in Colorado. His therapist testified in court that she could not get anyone to do anything.

There is a good argument there that James Holmes should have been arrested and all that goes with that.

We do not know all the reasons this guys mom called. Maybe a visit by someone trained in things like this could have better explained her call. Maybe not. The argument is not that we can stop every single person intent on harming others. The argument is whether we are doing enough where we can.

This thread isn't about James Holmes. It's about the El Paso shooter and his mom didn't say he threatened to shoot anyone. She said she thought he was too immature and inexperienced to own one. He is 21 and he is legal able to buy and own one. Law enforcement had NO REASON to take his gun.

It is absolutely AMAZING how some of the strong 2nd Amendment supporters on this forum not only don't know how the 2nd Amendment works, but also suddenly lose their fervor for a citizen's rights after-the-fact.

The discussion is around what we can do to try and stop some of the violence but you are a perfect example of what I said. We are not interested in that discussion. We simply will prefer to put what we perceive as the other side down. We saw that happen in this thread also.

Fortunately many of us 2nd Amendment supporters understand how the Constitution works as a whole.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

Art I, Sec. 8, Clause 15 & 16 are explicit, the above is ambiguous.

Clause 18, "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into the Execution the foregoing powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Is it necessary and proper to regulate arms? It's clear that the Brady Bill was necessary and proper exercise of the powers vested by COTUS and yet allowed to sunset.

It seems the last week, in fact this year alone, mass murders by an ARM killed many innocent people; rational thinkers believe such arms - created to kill large number so human beings in less than a minute - ought to be restricted to LE (SWAT) and the Militia in each state.

You are allowed to think that. We will have to see what the courts say but there is no mistake about it that if those who do support the 2nd continue to dismiss every other possible avenue to address this issue, people one way or the other are going to restrict their rights.

------------------------------------ GOOD , i'm looking forward to this Big shot and Elite and 'lefty' led political fight as Constitutional RIGHTS are removed by 'government' from Americans PKnopp .

 

[justinacolmena]

Police knew that the El Paso shooter had an ak47

Which is not a crime in and of itself.

and that he intended to use it

There are gun ranges and so forth where it is quite legal to fire an AK-47 rifle for target practice. That rifle is possibly even legal for hunting, and many gun owners are simply hobbyists to whom it would never occur to actually shoot to kill animals or humans.

but did nothing

That is most likely correct. We cannot live in an Orwellian police state of precrime and thoughtcrime.

It is high time to kick all the psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health workers and therapists out of court and lock them up where they will never again have the opportunity to harm or hurt another patient or defendant.

 

[pknopp]

That isn't the argument. James Holmes threatened his therapists life. That looks to be a crime in Colorado. His therapist testified in court that she could not get anyone to do anything.

There is a good argument there that James Holmes should have been arrested and all that goes with that.

We do not know all the reasons this guys mom called. Maybe a visit by someone trained in things like this could have better explained her call. Maybe not. The argument is not that we can stop every single person intent on harming others. The argument is whether we are doing enough where we can.

This thread isn't about James Holmes. It's about the El Paso shooter and his mom didn't say he threatened to shoot anyone. She said she thought he was too immature and inexperienced to own one. He is 21 and he is legal able to buy and own one. Law enforcement had NO REASON to take his gun.

It is absolutely AMAZING how some of the strong 2nd Amendment supporters on this forum not only don't know how the 2nd Amendment works, but also suddenly lose their fervor for a citizen's rights after-the-fact.

The discussion is around what we can do to try and stop some of the violence but you are a perfect example of what I said. We are not interested in that discussion. We simply will prefer to put what we perceive as the other side down. We saw that happen in this thread also.

Fortunately many of us 2nd Amendment supporters understand how the Constitution works as a whole.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

Art I, Sec. 8, Clause 15 & 16 are explicit, the above is ambiguous.

Clause 18, "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into the Execution the foregoing powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Is it necessary and proper to regulate arms? It's clear that the Brady Bill was necessary and proper exercise of the powers vested by COTUS and yet allowed to sunset.

It seems the last week, in fact this year alone, mass murders by an ARM killed many innocent people; rational thinkers believe such arms - created to kill large number so human beings in less than a minute - ought to be restricted to LE (SWAT) and the Militia in each state.

You are allowed to think that. We will have to see what the courts say but there is no mistake about it that if those who do support the 2nd continue to dismiss every other possible avenue to address this issue, people one way or the other are going to restrict their rights.

------------------------------------ GOOD , i'm looking forward to this Big shot and Elite and 'lefty' led political fight as Constitutional RIGHTS are removed by 'government' from Americans PKnopp .

I posted where even strong gun supporting WV is supporting the red flag laws.

 

[pismoe]

This thread isn't about James Holmes. It's about the El Paso shooter and his mom didn't say he threatened to shoot anyone. She said she thought he was too immature and inexperienced to own one. He is 21 and he is legal able to buy and own one. Law enforcement had NO REASON to take his gun.

It is absolutely AMAZING how some of the strong 2nd Amendment supporters on this forum not only don't know how the 2nd Amendment works, but also suddenly lose their fervor for a citizen's rights after-the-fact.

The discussion is around what we can do to try and stop some of the violence but you are a perfect example of what I said. We are not interested in that discussion. We simply will prefer to put what we perceive as the other side down. We saw that happen in this thread also.

Fortunately many of us 2nd Amendment supporters understand how the Constitution works as a whole.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

Art I, Sec. 8, Clause 15 & 16 are explicit, the above is ambiguous.

Clause 18, "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into the Execution the foregoing powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Is it necessary and proper to regulate arms? It's clear that the Brady Bill was necessary and proper exercise of the powers vested by COTUS and yet allowed to sunset.

It seems the last week, in fact this year alone, mass murders by an ARM killed many innocent people; rational thinkers believe such arms - created to kill large number so human beings in less than a minute - ought to be restricted to LE (SWAT) and the Militia in each state.

You are allowed to think that. We will have to see what the courts say but there is no mistake about it that if those who do support the 2nd continue to dismiss every other possible avenue to address this issue, people one way or the other are going to restrict their rights.

------------------------------------ GOOD , i'm looking forward to this Big shot and Elite and 'lefty' led political fight as Constitutional RIGHTS are removed by 'government' from Americans PKnopp .

I posted where even strong gun supporting WV is supporting the red flag laws.

------------------------------- RED FLAG LAWS , they are ok with me though I disagree with them and I note that people never think toward Future Consequences . Wait till returning military is gone after because they have 'ptsd' PKN.

 

[Crixus]

No, but on a judge's order, we should be able to take their guns. Temporarily.

Who decides? A judge with no mental health training whatsoever?

How would you feel if I convinced a judge that your elevator no longer reached the top floor (and it doesn't) and you no longer needed access to the internet to spread lies?

It doesn't seem to be a problem in the states that already have ERPO laws. You would have to ask a judge how they make decisions in MANY cases without a mental health degree. I think expert testimony is usually relied on.

Judges can order mental exams, they do not need decide without a degree

Anyone who thinks he needs an AR-15 needs a mental exam.

I didn't need one, but I wanted one so I bought one.

Ain't America grand?

Actually, I have two so I suppose I'm double nuts.

Or, twice as fun! I had one for the longest time. Damn thing was a bullet hose. Many a wild swine in the way east Texas area runs around with my 5.56 rounds in them. I sold it off so I could buy Harley parts.