Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

SHOOTING: Falling through the cracks

Letter by Karin J. Morris, Tacoma on Jan. 12, 2011 at 4:08 pm with 105 Comments »
January 12, 2011 4:08 pm

Every year or so someone deranged “falls through the cracks,” obtains a gun and then proceeds to shoot a number of people.

There were the two who stole an openly displayed gun from a gun shop here in Tacoma and then shot a number of people at random in the D.C. area. Their behavior “fell through the cracks.”

A strangely behaving student at Virginia Tech “fell through the cracks,” got a gun and killed fellow students.

Loner Columbine students also “fell through the cracks” and shot several at their school.

At Fort Hood, a weirdly behaving psychiatrist “fell through the cracks” and shot several soldiers.

And now this tragedy in Tucson. Again we are told a killer’s disturbed behavior “fell through the cracks.” He was able to get a semiautomatic with 30 rounds and thus could kill several people.

It seems that our gun laws are “cracked” and dysfunctional.

And yet we go on allowing guns in parks, in public places, to be worn openly or concealed without a permit. All for self-protection.

Yes, the Second Amendment, written back when an armed populace was probably relevant. Also a time when hate-spewing blogs or violence-inciting TV commentators were not widely available.

How come all those “protective” guns do not protect us from tragedies like the above? Was there not someone there at that Tucson gathering with a gun who could stop what occurred?

Leave a comment Comments → 105
  1. The rhetoric of 200 years ago was likely worse than what we witness today. Back then, disputes were settled with dueling pistols a la Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr.

    Yes, there was someone with a gun at the Giffords shooting. Unfortunately he arrived on the scene seconds after the damage had already been done. Otherwise, he might have taken the shooter out and saved several lives.

  2. mrenchirito says:

    “Yes, the Second Amendment, written back when an armed populace was probably relevant. Also a time when hate-spewing blogs or violence-inciting TV commentators were not widely available.”

    Actually hate-spewing blogs or TV commentators were not available at all, but if you point is the discourse was more civil back then you couldn’t be more wrong. Thomas Jefferson had this to say about John Adams…”having a hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.”

    Adams replied by calling Jefferson “a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.”

    Civil discourse? I think not. Guns do protect people time after time every single day across this nation. They just are not reported like the mass killings that top the nations media outlets for weeks on end.

    Read more: http://blog.thenewstribune.com/letters/2011/01/12/cracks-and-guns/#ixzz1As2jpE4q

  3. hortonpeak says:

    Karin, you make some very good points but lost it at the end.

    “Was there not someone there at that Tucson gathering with a gun who could stop what occurred?”

    Read more: http://blog.thenewstribune.com/letters/2011/01/12/cracks-and-guns/#ixzz1As71JDZL

    Think about that statement — please.

  4. A sample of earlAmerican politcal rhetoric:

    “Noah Webster, strapped for money accepted an offer in late 1793 from Alexander Hamilton of $1500 to move to New York City and edit a Federalist newspaper. In December he founded New York’s first daily newspaper, American Minerva (later known as The Commercial Advertiser). He edited it for four years writing the equivalent of 20 volumes of articles and editorials. He also published the semi-weekly publication, The Herald, A Gazette for the country (later known as The New York Spectator). As a partisan he soon was denounced by the Jeffersonian Republicans as “a pusillanimous, half-begotten, self-dubbed patriot”, “an incurable lunatic”, and “a deceitful newsmonger … Pedagogue and Quack.” Fellow Federalist Cobbett labeled him “a traitor to the cause of Federalism”, calling him “a toad in the service of sans-cullottism”, “a prostitute wretch”, “a great fool, and a barefaced liar”, “a spiteful viper”, and “a maniacal pedant.”

  5. hortonpeak says:

    To Velmak – WTF. Cheers.

  6. velmak and mren, thanks for doing the homework on this one. We really are too full of ourselves to presume the rhetoric of today is so much worse than that of the past.

    Perhaps what we should be looking at is the internet access to bomb-making, anarchist sites…

    or even more to the point, the way the media gives guys like Loughner the hope of seeing their muggs all over TV??

  7. hortonpeak says:

    Sorry Velmak. I did not read your first post. Perhaps, now I understand your later comment. Yes, political discourse has always included name calling but no where in your later comment do I see anything containing the rhetoric we see today. Secondly, your comment about the individual with a gun arriving too late. I believe I saw an interview in which he stated in retrospect he would have shot the wrong person. I still have to say to you – WTF. Cheers.

  8. hortonpeak says:

    But, but, to all – how about the”Constitution”. Free speech? Does that not also apply to today’s technology like the internet? But then the second amendment does not apply to today’s technology? Cheers.

  9. velmak, intersting points I have seen before, but they fail the bullseye and come shoot an M-16 comments from your friends.

  10. hortonpeak – yes the first, second, third… as well as all amendments in the Bill of Rights apply now as they were when they were first written. Freedom is natural right endowed by our creator, not government.

  11. hortonpeak says:

    Then why did it take a “government” to “endow” them? Why did the “Constitution” need to be amended since I presume you think it was from the “perfect” creator from the start or was it or the creator not so perfect? Why can the first amendment be constrained due to technology but not the second? Or the second but not the first? Why did the “creator” take thousands of years to finally show up? I suggest you tell the “creator” to take a hike and start exercising that “free will” that does or does not exist depending on the argument. You lost the argument when you invoked the “creator”. That does nothing but make me realize I am dealing with someone incapable of rational thought. Cheers.

  12. Did you not read the last sentence – …endowed by our Creator, not government.”

    You presume wrong… an the authors also knew that it was not perfect and provided for an amendment process.

    The first amendment is not constrained by technology. Free speech is free speech – voice, paper, smoke signals, bits/bytes, doesn’ matter.

    The second amendment is also not constrained by technology.

    The rest of it is rambling to me…

  13. bobcat1a says:

    We don’t kill people because they are vile, filthy, despicable people as Jefferson and Adams said of each other. However, we do kill people who are enemies of the country, who want to destroy America, who plan to put us in concentration camps, who are evil; there is a qualitative difference which anyone should be able to see.

  14. sharkie69 says:

    “Was there not someone there at that Tucson gathering with a gun who could stop what occurred?”

    Yes, there was and he assisted in holding the gunman until police arrived. He did not display his weapon and add to the bullet flying.

    In other words, he was a responsible gun owner.

  15. “How come all those “protective” guns do not protect us from tragedies like the above?”

    Karin – when an individual decides to carry a weapon, it is for self protection. The ability to protect others is dependent on the size of the group. But no one can protect you better than you can protect yourself.

  16. hortonpeak says:

    yes, I stand corrected. The perfect “creator” endowed an imperfect form of government that was then amended to make it perfect but then was not subject to further amendment or change because it was “endowed” by the creator. Got it. Thanks for your help.

  17. “We do kill people who are enemies of the country, who want to destroy america, who plan to put us in contration camps, who are evil.”
    OK. Anyone specifically, particularly within the borders of the U.S., do you perceive as meeting these criteria, bobcat1a? Just curious.

  18. Rambling dude, rambling…

  19. hortonpeak says:

    Well, rrblahblah good to see you have the ad hominem attack at hand since the “creator” did not show up. Cheers.

  20. Alison7613 says:

    I wish we would stop calling the mentally ill crazy or deranged. It makes people who suffer from these illnesses sound as if they are not even human beings. We need to identify and treat these individuals to prevent violence.

  21. harleyrider1 says:

    Recognize there are simply bad people in this world. Each one of them is to blame for their behavior, no matter how tragic it is. We live in a country where freedom and rights are valued above all else. We don’t lock up or kill bad people because some of us would like to. They’re not falling through the cracks. With over 325-million people, these are few.
    Don’t blame the parents. don’t blame the police, don’t rally for more laws, don’t ban cars, tv, or guns – focus on the bad person. Steps are in place and they take time, but the laws in this country require we go though the process to get wack jobs off the street.
    Imagine how frustrated and apprehensive your police are in dealing with these kinds of people day after day.

  22. frankiethomas says:

    It seemed like everyone in town knew this guy was in need of mental health treatment. I have not at this time seen any reports that his parents tried to get it for him.

  23. There was a time in this country when people who were clearly mentally ill would be taken care of in a state run mental institution. Then in the 60’s, along comes the liberal “touchy-feelie” attitude that it is wrong to incarcerate “innocent’ people and that they should be released to our streets to live in neighborhood “half way houses”. We all see the results of this twisted logic. There used to be laws that discouraged the homeless and destitute from living on the streets, they were called “vagrancy laws”. In the city I grew up in, the cops could ask a person how much money they had in their pocket, if they had no visible means of support and were financially broke, they were arrested. The Tucson shooter and thousands like him are free to run around the country and create mayhem, thanks to liberal do-gooders.

  24. sharkie69 says:

    “rr98411 says:
    January 12, 2011 at 9:05 pm
    hortonpeak – from your posts tonight I am beginning to think that they let Jared Loughner have access to a computer from the Tucson jail.”

    This is the inflammatory rhetoric that they claim they don’t use.

  25. sharkie69 says:

    Frosty – how does the hook, line and sinker taste?

    It was federal funding cuts that put mentally ill on the streets. Any student of recent history knows that.

    Why do you think many of them are veterans? We have money to blow things up, but not enough to care for the men and women that served.

  26. sharkie69 says:

    As to the Second Amendment, I think it’s time to amend it. There is a process and it’s happened many times during the history of our country.

  27. NWflyfisher says:

    Karin: you asked “How come all those “protective” guns do not protect us from tragedies like the above?”

    Not all citizens are legally armed; consequently a legally armed citizen may or may not be in a given area at a given time. Additionally, a legally armed citizen may be exercising responsible caution and restraint as did Joe Zamudio who saw Loughner in the process of being subdued and ran to the scene to help subdue him. Citizens who carry firearms do so for personal protection, not to be an extension of community law enforcement.

    A person who trips off the line and is intent on doing harm will use any weapon of convenience such as knives, cars, bombs or even airplanes.

  28. frosty – it was in the 80s, not the 60s, that the REAGAN Administration led the charge on making it impossible to intervene with obviously mentally unstable individuals who did not demonstrate demonstrate a clear and present danger to themselves or others. And, it was the REAGAN Administration that defunded halfway houses that provided at least a modicum of official intervention and, instead, dumped them into the streets.

  29. Let’s all thank Ronnie Reagan for the dismal shape our mental health services are today. Republican ideology is at the core of our problems here in America. The gop is nothing but a sociopathic cult that puts its ideology before what is best for America.
    Of course, the hate filled rhetoric is to blame. All words matter. The gopcult’s hated filled rhetoric is designed to keep their rank and file scared and stupid and it works really well.
    Once again we are seeing the gopcult in action. Their propaganda campaign effectively resists responsibility for what comes out of their mouths.

  30. mrenchirito says:

    “As to the Second Amendment, I think it’s time to amend it.”

    Well not happen, at least not in our lifetimes. People support the right to keep and bear arms by an overwhelming majority. In fact 60% of Americans are against any further laws regulating firearms. The Supreme Court has ruled on 2 different landmark cases affirming the 2nd Amendment. Your attempts cannot succeed.

  31. Roncella says:

    Karen, Think about all the examples you give in your letter. In almost every one of them the same story unfolds. Many, many people refused to take action and ignored all the signs of these insane murderers, usually over a period of a few years or more.

    We have enough laws on the books already, we have enough safeguards on purchasing weapons already, they need to Be Inforced to the Letter.

    law enforcement and others need to stop looking the other way.

    The really sad question you bring up about why was there no one at the Meet and Greet in Tucson that black saturday with a weapon to shop the killer, interesting. Why didn’t the congress women have some security at the function ?

    She had received death threats and her office was shot at and the front door shattered a few months ago.

    One would think that maybe its time to hire some security to accompany the Meet Your Congressman functions at stripe malls or town hall meetings.

  32. nokoolaide says:

    From my cold dead hands……………..Molon Labe!

  33. Roncella says:

    Velmak, Just read your post, its a great example and shows how the left has tried to blame the Shootings in Arizona on Conservatives, and stop the debate to halt all the out of control spending by dems, and moving the Country to the very Far Left as fast as they can.

    What did the dems do right before the end of their control of Congress, they passed against the will of a majority Americans bills the dems. knew they would never be able to get passed once the new Conservative Congressmen took over in Washington D.C. in jan 11.

  34. sharkie69 says:

    “mrenchirito says:
    January 13, 2011 at 8:40 am
    “As to the Second Amendment, I think it’s time to amend it.”

    Well not happen, at least not in our lifetimes. People support the right to keep and bear arms by an overwhelming majority. In fact 60% of Americans are against any further laws regulating firearms. The Supreme Court has ruled on 2 different landmark cases affirming the 2nd Amendment. Your attempts cannot succeed. “

    I posted this to see how fast someone would tell us that the citizens couldn’t be successful in amending the Constitution.

    The majority of voters (read – “men”) didn’t want women to vote. A rational determined campaign won.

    Regardless of the NRA’s publicity machine, I maintain that there is not a 60% majority that would have a problem with consideration of gun control. Now, the NRA will spend a lot of membership money and lobby money from the firearms manufacturers telling you their message, but taken up on a grass roots basis, now is the time to start educating Americans on the truth about our excessive loss of lives in comparison to countries with rational gun control.

    As to “polls” – if you care to check, about two weeks ago, Obama couldn’t see the 50% mark. Latest polls have him at 53% approval – almost a 10% increase in a week or so. This demonstrates that Americans can think for themselves when they quit following the negative message bearers.

  35. sharkie69 says:

    “Today, Americans are as likely to say the laws governing gun sales should be kept as they are now (43%) as to say they should be made more strict.”

    Gallup Poll.

    If you’ll pardon the pun, this short of shoot the “60%” quote in the foot.

    Americans aren’t as gun happy as the NRA and GOA would like you to believe.

  36. sharkie69 says:

    not “short” – “sort” not “shoot” – “shoots”

    A twofer typo.

  37. sharkie69 says:

    In case anyone needs to know:

    “In the latest poll from the Associated Press, Barack Obama gained six points to regain majority approval for the first time in months. Republicans in Congress also gained ground, but so did Democrats, who now lead the GOP for trust on the economy.” – Hot Air (former owned by Malkin)

    6 point increase from 47 is actually a 12.7% increase. Pretty amazing in a short period of time. What happened during that time was that the GOP was busy blowing their horns in celebration of the House they weren’t running yet and Obama just went about doing his job and taking his annual vacation.

  38. TSkidmore says:

    Interesting that two points are totally missed – 1. Mental institutions closed in 1970’s due to both Liberals (didn’t think people should be “warehoused” – “mentally ill have the constitutional right to die under a bridge.” Conservatives loved the idea because they don’t want to pay to treat the mentally ill. 2. Second Amendment was written to prevent the development of a professional army (and who are all those folks out at Ft. Lewis?)…no draft equals no citizen military as the founding fathers wanted…..unintended results????

  39. mrenchirito says:

    “PRINCETON, NJ — Gallup finds a new low of 44% of Americans saying the laws covering firearm sales should be made more strict. That is down 5 points in the last year and 34 points from the high of 78% recorded the first time the question was asked, in 1990.”

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/123596/In-U.S.-Record-Low-Support-Stricter-Gun-Laws.aspx

    So 56% say keep the laws as is or make them less strict, I was off by 4%, I stand corrected.

    As to amending the 2nd Amendment you are being very vague. Do you intend to eliminate it, change the wording? If so change the wording to what? Feel free to try, I’m just telling it will never succeed.

  40. “I posted this to see how fast someone would tell us that the citizens couldn’t be successful in amending the Constitution.”

    My post has been removed but we can amend the Constitution, it has been done quite a few times. The question I ask again is what are you trying to amend and why are you (anyone) trying to amend it? Why does it need to be amended? What about a simple law to cover what you want to occur?

    “Americans aren’t as gun happy as the NRA and GOA would like you to believe.”

    They may not be “gun happy” but they sure are happy with their rights.

  41. mrenchirito says:

    “Second Amendment was written to prevent the development of a professional army”

    Perhaps that was part of the reason, but no means was the only (or main) reason for the 2nd Amendment.

  42. BlaineCGarver says:

    Gawd, I’ve never heard such anti-gun ignorance. The large cities with the most strict gun laws are the most violence prone areas in America. The majority of gun violence is connected with gangs. Enforce the existing laws and take apart the gangs before you start messing with my personal rights. You have a better chance of peacefully getting Blacks to return to the back of the bus than you have of getting my guns away from me.

  43. JudasEscargot says:

    BlaineCGarver says:
    January 13, 2011 at 12:46 pm
    Gawd, I’ve never heard such anti-gun ignorance. The large cities with the most strict gun laws are the most violence prone areas in America. The majority of gun violence is connected with gangs. Enforce the existing laws and take apart the gangs before you start messing with my personal rights. You have a better chance of peacefully getting Blacks to return to the back of the bus than you have of getting my guns away from me.

    Cro Magnon Man strikes again. I loved how you weave your racial bigotry (not once but twice) into your “personal rights” rant.

    Gun violence connected with gangs – you mean like all of the motorcycle gangs that are predominately caucasian and are the masters of the meth trade? Of course you don’t.

    In case you haven’t be educated on this – crime follows poverty, poverty is mostly urban because urban areas have the resources (although limited) to help poverty stricken that are not criminals.

    Your “personal rights” seem to be violating the perceived personal rights of Americans that don’t want everything to be settle with “Second Amendments Solutions. If you’ve got a complaint, you might want to have a talk with your right wing spokespeople who do more damage to your cause than good.

    I’m assuming by your last sentence, that you could not comply with a law that changed the 2nd Amendment. Well, guess who would be the criminal then?

  44. JudasEscargot says:

    As per the link:

    “Today, Americans are as likely to say the laws governing gun sales should be kept as they are now (43%) as to say they should be made more strict.

    That’s what the link says. The rest is magical math.

  45. FreeAmerica says:

    After reading every comment I must comment…

    We have laws currently that keep guns out of the mentally unstable individuals.

    Sheriff Dupnick should probably explain why this individual wasn’t mentally evaluated after so many issues with police regarding his mental state.

    Why was this guy allowed to buy a gun?
    How many signs do the police need?

    Sheriff Dupnick’s attempt to blame political rhetoric was borderline criminal in an effort to cover up lack of duty to protect the citizen.

  46. mrenchirito says:

    I stated earlier in this thread….
    “In fact 60% of Americans are against any further laws regulating firearms.”

    The Gallup poll states ” Gallup finds a new low of 44% of Americans saying the laws covering firearm sales should be made more strict” The same poll also shows that the remaining 56% want to keep the laws as is or get rid of some. I was off by 4% Very simple to understand really.

  47. mrenchirito says:

    Free America,that is true, many people failed Mr. Loughner including the Community College he was kicked out of for disturbing behavior in class.

  48. JudasEscargot says:

    “Sheriff Dupnick should probably explain why this individual wasn’t mentally evaluated after so many issues with police regarding his mental state.

    Why was this guy allowed to buy a gun?
    How many signs do the police need?

    Sheriff Dupnick’s attempt to blame political rhetoric was borderline criminal in an effort to cover up lack of duty to protect the citizen. “

    WOW!!!! Smaller government and individual freedoms just ran out the door when you need an excuse.

    I see people on this forum that I think need mental evaluation. What part of the smaller government do you want to “restrict their freedom of speech”.

    Why was “this guy allowed to buy a gun”? Good question. Ask the retailer that sold it. We’re trying to get the government out of our lives and let the “free market system” take care of things. Did the looney suddenly put on a good act for the gun seller? Are they not capable of saying “no, we’re not selling you a gun”?

    All this talk of less government intervention in our lives sure leaves the room quickly when you are trying to pin something on a Democratic Sheriff that told everyone where the cow chewed the cabbage.

    This is not new for the Sheriff. He voiced similar concerns over the rhetoric about “illegals”, but Fox didn’t interview him on that.

  49. JudasEscargot says:

    “The same poll also shows that the remaining 56% want to keep the laws as is or get rid of some.”

    Please copy and paste the text that says that on your gallup link. If I’m missing it, I need to ask for my money back on both lens replacements for my eyes.

  50. mrenchirito says:

    “Ask the retailer that sold it.”
    Are cashiers supposed to read minds? Without some tangible evidence in a database (which wasn’t there) how are they to decide who should or shouldn’t be able to purchase? Perhaps if the customer is acting in a bizarre way then they can make a choice not to sell, but we have no evidence this was the case here.

  51. mrenchirito says:

    “Please copy and paste the text that says that on your gallup link.”

    It’s in the graph listed at http://www.gallup.com/poll/123596/In-U.S.-Record-Low-Support-Stricter-Gun-Laws.aspx

    Have you read a graph before? Pay attention to the 3 categories, % more strict, %kept as now, and %less strict). As you stated 44% of those polled want more strict gun laws, obviously that leaves a majority of 56% to be divided between the 2 remaining categories. If you need further explanation please let me know, but that’s about as simple as I can make it.

  52. JudasEscargot says:

    So the “free market” can’t handle this one, huh?

    Well, then I guess we’ll just have to have more government intervention into people’s lives.

    Let’s make everyone purchasing a gun have to undergo a mental stability test and then show the cashier at the gun shop that they were approved? Oops…..personal freedom…..

    According to “friends, etc”, he had been acting bizarre for awhile. In fact Dupnick is being dragged over the coals because allegedly there had been some sort of information provided to the Sheriff’s office. But the gun seller didn’t know or notice anything.

    According to “Gunslot” there is no waiting period in Arizona to purchase a handgun. That one worked real well for this case.

    Very convenient.

  53. “According to “Gunslot” there is no waiting period in Arizona to purchase a handgun. That one worked real well for this case.”

    Their is no “waiting period” because their is a National Instant Criminal Background Check System. You do basivcally wait until the forms are filled out, checked, rechecked, the call is made to the representative (law enforcement – government by the way), a check is made and if approved, yes you can walk out with a purchase.

  54. mrenchirito says:

    A 5 day waiting period, 10 day waiting period, or 30 day waiting period would not have prevented this purchase. Loughner purchased the Glock in November, so there goes that argument.

    One of the most important functions of Government is to keep dangerous individuals off the streets. I’m not blaming any one person but I am saying there were multiple red flags displayed by Loughner through contact with law enforcement, through his Community College administrators, and through peers/classmates who noticed his disturbing behavior. Why didn’t any of these people report him to authorites or mental health professionals?

  55. JudasEscargot says:

    “Today, Americans are as likely to say the laws governing gun sales should be kept as they are now (43%) as to say they should be made more strict.”

    That is what the poll says, indicating that an equal amount are happy with gun laws as is, and equally want laws more strict.

    The rest is magic math, as you just proved.

    Bottom line, I too, would work at educating the public on the need to revise or amend the 2nd Amendment. Just the point that the gun owners are so quick to want to ignore the part about a militia, says that the law is antiquated for today’s society.

  56. JudasEscargot says:

    Oh…so in November there couldn’t have been a mandatory mental evaluation?

    The difference between you and I is that you are looking for the excuses, I’m looking for possible solutions.

    I would exercise being overly conservative about who should own a gun. I would very conservatively exercise every possible option before letting a gun get in the hands of the wrong person.

    I don’t think the United States of America will fall into the hands of the (please excuse me for this) “socialist/marxists/communists/Muslim/Black Theologians” if someone had to prove mental stability to own a gun.

  57. FreeAmerica says:

    It is a FEDERAL law that the mentally unstable can’t purchase firearms… get it? Federal Law?

    Had this person been in the system as mentally unstable (as he was) he would have never passed a background check.

    This is CURRENT FEDERAL LAW… enforce the laws in place…

    If anybody has blood on their hands it is sheriff Dupnick.

  58. mrenchirito says:

    “That is what the poll says, indicating that an equal amount are happy with gun laws as is, and equally want laws more strict.”

    That is correct however why are you leaving out the 3rd category that want less strict gun laws? So my point remains accurate, 56% of the people want gun laws to remain as is or to be less strict. Nothing magic there, I’m just able to read a graph.

    Revise or amend the 2nd amendment how? Again you are not providing any specifics.

  59. mrenchirito says:

    “Oh…so in November there couldn’t have been a mandatory mental evaluation?”

    I seem to notice you are always twisting things and changing from topic to topic, how come? My comment about November was in response to your call for a waiting period. As I pointed out a waiting period would have done nothing here. I believe we both agree we don’t want people like this getting firearms. I am saying we have the laws to prevent that now if people like this are properly identified and reported. You seem to be bouncing from topic, giving vague answers, and providing no solutions that would have prevented this.

  60. “Bottom line, I too, would work at educating the public on the need to revise or amend the 2nd Amendment.”

    What would you educate them on?

    “Just the point that the gun owners are so quick to want to ignore the part about a militia, says that the law is antiquated for today’s society.”

    You are a member of the militia, it is detailed in the United States Code.

    How is the law antiquated? The musket was pretty high tech for the times.

    Read more: http://blog.thenewstribune.com/letters/2011/01/12/cracks-and-guns/#ixzz1AxWzdRlB

  61. FreeAmerica says:

    “Bottom line, I too, would work at educating the public on the need to revise or amend the 2nd Amendment. Just the point that the gun owners are so quick to want to ignore the part about a militia, says that the law is antiquated for today’s society.”

    Tell that to 100 million gun owners…. Had it not for the public firearm ownership Japan would have invaded the US.
    American gun owners are larger than China and the US military combined.
    We are the largest Army in the world and are very responsible despite your ideological theory of the 2nd.

    Now… you may think the 2nd. is outdated but 100 million think you’re wrong.

    Criminals don’t care about gun laws or the 2nd…. Based on your fears must we change society to benefit the criminals?

  62. BlaineCGarver says:

    JE, I get it that you don’t care for right wing opinions, I also get that you choose not to understand fact and statistics. You don’t like my opinion, so you set up an attack that I’m a racist. Typical Liberal ClapTrap. You cannot prove any, not one, of my statements wrong. And BTW, if you or the Tyrants try to remove one of my enumerated rights, I will fight you. If you don’t believe in fighting for your rights, you have no business whineing about them. Intertwining past rights violations is NOT racist, it’s history. Nice try, Commie.

  63. BlaineCGarver says:

    BTW, “Falling Through The Cracks” is Liberal Code for …another one of our stupid guns laws didn’t work again…..Someday, I hope logic and IQ will come together for the Libs and they will realize that laws don’t work for the criminally insane. Also, have you noticed that most of the shootings of note have occured in Gun Free Zones…..how about that, the shooters brought guns into a guns prohibited area…..The murderes must be the product of the liberal education system if they can’t understand simplely written laws.

  64. NWflyfisher says:

    From Mafia Informant Sammy “The Bull” Gravano: “Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I’ll pull the trigger. We’ll see who wins.”

  65. FreeAmerica, you blame the sheriff for the failure of Arizona gun laws? The courts have ruled the portion of the Federal Brady bill that had mandated background checks as unConstitutional. It left it up to the states to develop gun laws in this area. Arizona does not have mandated waiting period or mandated background checks.

    Even if there were a background check, the alleged shooter would not have had a problem. The school never reported this person to law enforcement. The issue of mental illness requires a diagnosis by a mental health professional that would render a person not able to purchase handguns. It requires a statement that the person is dangerous to himself or others. Very rarely do “unstable” people get to that level. It is extremely hard to put someone involuntarily into an institution. There is no history of mental health professional involvement in the alleged shooter’s life. The school did not refer him and his family did not refer him.

    So, your argument that this is the sheriff’s fault totally misses the boat on all counts.

  66. mrenchirito says:

    “Arizona does not have mandated waiting period or mandated background checks.”

    Actually Arizona does along with 49 other states. It is required that every single person buying a new firearm from a licensed dealer goes through the national instant check system, it’s a federal law. Loughner had his background checked in this way prior to acquiring his Glock. Nothing came up because as you stated he was never referred to a mental health facility. That is where the problem lies.

  67. Had it not for the public firearm ownership Japan would have invaded the US.

    Evidence?

  68. JudasEscargot says:

    I made Blaine say racist things. It was my fault.

    Blaine, are you directly related to Palin or just close friends?

  69. This is what Jared Lougher had to do to purchase the Glock:

    *over 21 in order to purchase a handgun
    *present government-issued photo ID which establishes name, address, date-of-birth and carries a signature
    *Correctly and completely fill out and sign form government form 4473
    *The dealer will then call or fax the Arizona Firearms Clearance Center for an Arizona clearance as well as a federal NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) check.

    Not sure what the issue is…

  70. When filling out ATF Forn 4473 you will provide and the check will ascertain the following:

    ■A person who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or any state offense classified by the state as a misdemeanor and is punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than two years.
    ■Persons who are fugitives of justice—for example, the subject of an active felony or misdemeanor warrant.
    ■An unlawful user and/or an addict of any controlled substance; for example, a person convicted for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; or a person with multiple arrests for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past five years with the most recent arrest occurring within the past year; or a person found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year.
    ■A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges of found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial.
    ■A person who, being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States.
    ■A person who, being an alien except as provided in subsection (y) (2), has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa.
    ■A person dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces.
    ■A person who has renounced his/her United States citizenship.
    ■The subject of a protective order issued after a hearing in which the respondent had notice that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner. This does not include ex parte orders.
    ■A person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime which includes the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon and the defendant was the spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited in the past with the victim as a spouse, parent, guardian or similar situation to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim.
    ■A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

  71. rr98411, you asked what the issue was about abckground checks. I was responding to the issue as stated by Free America in his contention that the sheriff did not enforce Federal laws about mentally unstable people buying guns, “If anybody has blood on their hands it is sheriff Dupnick.”

    You will notice in your information that a background check provides, nowhere is there any support for FreeAmerica’s assertion that “mentally unstable can’t purchase firearms”. Lots of mentally stable people purchase firearms because they have never been adjudicated in court. Even with disqualification by courts, the estimate is that only about 40% of people who are actually disqualified by the courts from purchasing handguns appear on the NCIS database, and Loughner himself had never been disqualified. The Virginia Tech shooter had been disqualified but did not appear on the NCIS database.

    I did use the wrong term, when I said Arizona did not have a
    “background check”. In my mind the instant check is not a real background check. The more thorough background check takes about 10-14 days to complete and goes into all the state’s records rather than just the incomplete NCIS list was not implemented by Arizona. I stand corrected, however, since the law does use the term background check for this bit of show.

  72. A couple of things going on here…

    Well, it is federal law that a mentally ill person can not own nor possess a firearm. OK, we all agree on that.

    The question appears to be the quality of the information in the NICS. I found that 40% figure that you quote above from a “third way” report on “Missing Records …” I can’t validate that number as the report has no methodolgy or method of analysis how the data was obtained, where it can from, etc… Yes, they provide Endnotes, but that doesn’t tell me enough to validate the data nor how they arrive at their conculsions.

    Yes, their are background checks that are 10-14 days, they typically include interviews, history validation, credit checks, etc… but that would be unmanageable for all firearm purchases.

  73. rr98411, one refinement to your post. Mentally ill persons can buy guns. None of the laws say otherwise. To be disqualified, a person has to have been institutionalized by a court (or court appointee) or adjudicated by a court. Only about 1% of mentally ill persons are ever determined incompetent at that level. It is an extremely high threshold that takes a lot of evidence that a person is dangerous to himself or others or not competent to handle his own affairs.

  74. tuddo – bingo!!! That appears to be the issue.

    Just because you think I am nuts with my Lady GaGa outfits at school/work (and I am a dude) doesn’t mean I can be denied the rigth to purchase or have access to a gun.

    I would refine your post to say “Those that are suspected to be ‘mentally ill persons can buy guns’ ” They are not mentally ill until a Doctor and a Judge says so… on paper.

    So… like I said before… am I mentally ill or do I just like the feeling of a side of beef against my skin. (Sorry, I know I have just ruined you day with that image)

  75. NWflyfisher says:

    rr98411. Now you’ve done it. You opened the door to the Federal Sanity Certification Act. The purpose of The Act would be to require annual certification of sanity of each citizen. Of course, the agency would require a taxpayer funded federal bureaucracy (Federal Sanity Certification Agency) be created to administer the program and an annual Mental Status And Sanity Certification Examination. The examination would, of course, be a mental health benefit covered by Obamacare.

  76. JudasEscargot says:

    “NWflyfisher says:
    January 13, 2011 at 4:57 pm
    From Mafia Informant Sammy “The Bull” Gravano: “Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I’ll pull the trigger. We’ll see who wins.”

    Let’s imagine a United States where everyone thinks like a man that randomly killed for a living and then got FBI protection for informing.

    Now THAT is some quality living, huh?

    We all seek role models in our life. It’s good to see NW Fly has one.

  77. JudasEscargot says:

    Another nice laundry list, by rr.

    Now, if a person already has a gun prior to any of those “offenses”, does the government take his or her gun?

    For whatever it’s worth, either this clown in Arizona went sideways since November (not likely) or someone sold a looney a gun.

    Money has a way of setting the standard. Add to that an antiquated law that is misinterpreted and you have problems.

    I suppose the shooter was planing to fight the American government’s takeover of his rights – one Congressperson at a time.

  78. JudasEscargot says:

    For those who asked how I would better educate people to eventually change the Amendment, let’s start with the text:

    “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”

    I’m not a complicated person and I just read what is on the pages. The FIRST thing I see is A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. Thus the purpose is established in what remains – the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

    So let’s go back to the first half. Can anyone tell when the government of the United States tried to REALLY (not just fantasy in the mind) eliminate freedom? The truth is that as this country has aged, more freedoms have become available. Heck, ladies can vote and blacks aren’t sold as slaves anymore – just a couple of examples. I say NO. This country is not taking away freedom, at least to the degree that you need a militia to go to war with the US military.

    Which brings me to part two. Is someone going to tell me that a 30 shot, 9mm Glock is going to bring down the US military when Obama directs them to put us in concentration camps? The US military, could just fire up a few of the unmanned drones and start thinning out the militia in a heatbeat.

    So, rational thinking people, realizing that the government isn’t going to ship us all to concentration camps and that we are not going to be too successful at fighting against them anyway, should understand that the ownership of weapons is for recreational purposes primarily and self defense in a minority of cases (do the math of reports on your chances of being murdered or even held up).

    Recreation. I support it 100%, other than a paid $250,000 per episode half governors shooting a caribou for nothing other than pleasure and to “man up”. If you need to feed your family, hunting is a legitimate way.

    Pleasure shooting. Again, 100% support. The problem here is that, as population increases, there is less and less space for shooting ranges. See the case in Kitsap County about exactly that. No one should be at risk because someone wants to pleasure shoot.

    Self defense – the man that assisted in the AZ shooting is a great example. He kept his gun in his holster until ABSOLUTELY sure. Luckily he did because the man he tried to disarm wasn’t the shooter. Had he gotten buck fever and started shooting, we’d have another possible death or at least injury.

    So in closing, first of all, we need leaders that don’t refer to Congress and the White House as enemies, while whooping up the NRA rally on the mall in DC. Second, a rational understanding of why the law exists and third an application that made sense to the reason for existence of said law/amendment. Something that works for all people, regardless of if they own a gun.

    There’s a start. Once people get off the emotional rollercoaster of gun control, we might start acting human. Of course, THAT could be the problem

  79. One question – who certifies the certifier?

    I hear Siberia is pretty frosty this time of the year…

  80. JudasEscargot says:

    Another Gravano quote:

    “I became a killer. Joe Colucci was going to die. I was going to kill him because he was plotting to kill me. I felt the rage inside me…. Everything went in slow motion. I could almost feel the bullet leaving the gun and entering his skull. It was strange. I didn’t hear the first shot. I didn’t see any blood. His head didn’t seem to move…. I felt like I was a million miles away, like this was all a dream”

  81. “Another nice laundry list, by rr.”
    You can thank the FBI and ATF for creating it.

    “Now, if a person already has a gun prior to any of those “offenses”, does the government take his or her gun?”
    Yes, if he is deemed mentally incompetent by a Judge via due process. (That pesky 5th Amendment)

    “For whatever it’s worth, either this clown in Arizona went sideways since November (not likely) or someone sold a looney a gun.”
    Someone sold “this clown” a gun because the clown had a clean background and his behavior was functional. As some mentally incompetent people can be.

    “Money has a way of setting the standard. Add to that an antiquated law that is misinterpreted and you have problems.”
    What???

    “I suppose the shooter was planing to fight the American government’s takeover of his rights – one Congressperson at a time.”
    Interesting interpretation based on what???

  82. JudasEscargot says:

    rr – why don’t you expand on your question, since I didn’t use the word “certifier” or refer to Siberia, which is not in the United States.

  83. JudasEscargot says:

    “Yes, if he is deemed mentally incompetent by a Judge via due process. (That pesky 5th Amendment)”

    Liberal interpretation of the 5th, but I’ll bite.

    There lies the point. How long is the process? How much damage can be done before “the process”

    ““I suppose the shooter was planing to fight the American government’s takeover of his rights – one Congressperson at a time.”
    Interesting interpretation based on what??? ”

    Based on heavy sarcasm. Read the 2nd Amendment.

  84. JudasEscargot says:

    ““Money has a way of setting the standard. Add to that an antiquated law that is misinterpreted and you have problems.”
    What???”

    It is well known that sellers ignore the laws (money setting the standard)

    Antiquated law that is misintepreted – as a gun seller to quote the 2nd Amendment to you and I’ll bet they don’t know it. They will say “right to bear arms” which is half of it.

  85. NWflyfisher says:

    rr98411: The Sanity Certification Czar appointed by the President, of course.

  86. JudasEscargot says:

    “NWflyfisher says:
    January 14, 2011 at 8:20 am
    rr98411: The Sanity Certification Czar appointed by the President, of course.”

    Yeah, and if the President has the right letter in parenthesis following his name, anyone he appoints is just fine, huh?

  87. NWflyfisher says:

    rr98411: I assumed your question “who certifies the certifier” was directed to me. I don’t read any of JudasEscargot’s posts so I apologize to you if your question was related to something he said.

  88. Two fine limited example. A case can be made that the government is slowly chipping away at property rights as well as excessive regulations that are suppose to “regulate” but do nothing more than provide unnecessary barriers to freedom.

    Obama using unmanned drones on the populace of the United States on American soil would be a violation of the Constitution, the law, moral law and just plain evil. I would expect that modern military man, who has sworn to protect and defend that same Constitution would question that unlawful order.

    … the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    Next to… We, the People… the most beautiful words in the world… well maybe I’ll add… freedom of speech… hey, freedom of the press… sounds pretty good to me too… No, …endowed by their Creator… yeah, that is awesome

  89. “rr – why don’t you expand on your question, since I didn’t use the word “certifier” or refer to Siberia, which is not in the United States.”

    Joke, dude… feeling a little frisky this morning? Lighten up man…

  90. “rr98411: The Sanity Certification Czar appointed by the President, of course.”

    Duh!! Of course… recess appointment I’m sure…

  91. Judas –

    Liberal interpretation? – I don’t know what to do with that.

    Loughner appears to be insane, a loon, a wacko, a couple of eggs short of a full dozen… are we even sure this dude could tell you what planet he was on?

    Sellers ignore the law, they violate the law, they are arrested. Ask the ATF they do frequent stings.

    A gun dealer may not know the 2nd Amendment but he sure does know the specs of that AR-15 I got my eye on.

  92. BlaineCGarver says:

    JudasEscargot says:
    January 13, 2011 at 8:07 pm
    I made Blaine say racist things. It was my fault.
    Blaine, are you directly related to Palin or just close friends?

    Again, you can’t use logic, so you insult me. Good Job, Judas, you’re a credit to your ilk.

  93. rr98411, I don’t think you are following me. One can be diagnosed with a mental illness and be just as off the wall crazy as anyone who has ever lived. The courts only get involved with involuntary commitment or criminal cases. Those are the only ones who get disqualified under the law. A court is not the one certifying a person as mentally ill, except for this law. So, that leaves the other 99% of people who are diagnosed as mentally ill as capable of buying handguns and assault weapons. The sanity comment was typical, funny, but typical misdirection. I am concerned about those 99% who are already diagnosed, not having all people go through a mental status exam.

    Except for the sexist part of it, I actually like the Swiss model where all adult males are required to own guns and be certified as qualified every year by background check and target qualifications under a qualified weapons expert. Lots of people who shouldn’t own get identified through that means. Except for hunting rifles, all other weapons are held under lock and key by the town militia. All males are required to serve national service. The handgun ownership in Switzerland is extremely high, but the weapons are off the street unless needed for actual defense.

  94. “One can be diagnosed with a mental illness and be just as off the wall crazy as anyone who has ever lived.”

    Broad brush here… people (me too) are throwing around terms, etc… that can be interpreted wildly… We are clear on the legal mandate vs ATF Form 4473, done.

    Taking baby steps here. If you are talking about individuals that have been diagnosed with DSM IV mental illness but have not been formally denied certain rights… then OK… my question is who are they? (generally speaking), Are they under the care of a doctor/institution (outpatient I assume)? Then it appears they are not formally denied rights but…??? OK that would be the question I have. I again assume that the doctor, institute and family are partially responsible for their care and need to esculate the care if the patient gets out of hand. (Being very simplistic here)

    If you are talking about people who are quite a few fries short of a happy meal but are not under any care. They are identified but nothing is being followed up on. That’s a problem…. but it is not a gun law issue… it is a mental health issue and the rights of individuals to seek or not seek mental health care.

    Loughner falls into the last example catagory. He was a short on the sanity check list, it was recognized that something was wrong, a determination by an institution (the school) was made but their was no follow up to make a determination of his sanity and ability to function in society.

    Switzerland – in a nutshell, we are not Europe (they are not as functional as it appears in the brocuhres), the right to bear arms is a right not to be infrigned by any government, 200-250 million plus people (vs 7.6 million), another federal beaucracy, if you hate the arms dealers before you will really hate them now as they will provide the weapons for every single militia person of age, did I mention yet another federal beaucracy… and did I mention we are not Europe.

  95. mrenchirito says:

    Judas, thank you for the detailed information regarding the 2nd Amendment and how you would amend it.

    Regarding self defense, people use firearms very frequently to defend themselves in this nation. Most never even fire a shot but just brandishing that weapon deters the criminal. There was a mass shooting that was stopped in a Colorado church in 2007 because a woman had her pistol with her and was able to bring down the maniac.

    As to protection against the Government, while I don’t think something like that will ever be necessary, our founders wanted civilians to be armed just in case. And if God forbid something like that ever did happen I would rather be armed and have a fighting chance then have nothing and surrender to tyranny. Look at events such as the Warsaw ghetto in WWII where the Jewish insurgents were able to hold off the NAZI force for over a month (mainly with pistols and rifles) until finally their ammunition ran out and finally defeated when they could no longer put up a fight. I realize it’s an extreme example but one worth noting.

  96. To get back to the original letter; Fallen through the cracks is what one gets with smaller, less intrusive, underfunded government.

    Mrenchirito – one of the other reasons for the 2nd Amendment was to protect the general population from the central government (federal or state)

  97. mrenchirito says:

    xring, I guess I would disagree a little with that and instead say a (main?) reason for the 2nd Amendment was to protect the general population from a tyrannical Government. Let’s not forget that even way back then they had some of the very same debates going on about the role of a centralized Government in relation to the power of the states. Just look at some of the debates between Adams who supported the Federalist point of view and Jefferson who favored states rights.

    The more things change, the more they stay the same.

  98. JudasEscargot says:

    BlaineCGarver says:
    January 13, 2011 at 12:46 pm
    You have a better chance of peacefully getting Blacks to return to the back of the bus than you have of getting my guns away from me.

    BlaineCGarver says:
    January 13, 2011 at 3:23 pm
    JE, I get it that you don’t care for right wing opinions, I also get that you choose not to understand fact and statistics.

    “BlaineCGarver says:
    January 14, 2011 at 9:03 am
    JudasEscargot says:
    January 13, 2011 at 8:07 pm
    I made Blaine say racist things. It was my fault.
    Blaine, are you directly related to Palin or just close friends?

    Again, you can’t use logic, so you insult me. Good Job, Judas, you’re a credit to your ilk.

    Well, Blaine, you’ve made my day.

    You didn’t stipulate a fact or statistic, just a racist slur.

    You’ve demonstrated that if the laws were changed, you would defy them, thus becoming the type of which you complain.

    Lastly, you think being related to, or friends with Palin is an insult.

    We agree on one thing.

  99. rr98411, we “infringe” on the right to bear arms all the time. We limit fully automatics to a handful of people like dealers who have to have background checks that take months and months to complete, with extensive interviews for sanity checks and all, for example. I would support George Bush and other conservative’s call to reinstate the ban on assault weapons which was allowed to expire. There are lots of arms that people cannot bear. If people think that they are going to go up against our National Guard with Glocks, then they are sadly mistaken. I do think that the founding fathers had more of a European view of “well-regulated militia” like Switzerland has than untrained gun toters that the NRA supports or drug dealers carrying whatever they want like in Mexico.

  100. Tuddo – yes, every law, no matter how meaningful they are meant to be, is an infringement on the right to bear arms. Every law…

    Why do we need to reinstate the Assualt Weapons Ban? What do you hope to accomplish?

    A government going rogue will not use force to disarm a populace. They will find reasons to make a person(s) ineligible… in the name of safety of course. They will also tax and make it burdensome to own a firearm.

    Switzerland – I guess we disagree for the reason I stated above. Again, we are not Europe nor will we ever be.

    Sorry for your view of the NRA, I don’t believe that is their policy. They have training programs as well as sponser competative seminars that provide for training and mentorship.

    Drug dealers are criminals, criminals with alot of money and resources, they can carry whatever they want.

  101. Those who support a “assault weapon” ban have not one clue of what they are talking about. This legislation was formed by politicians that don’t know which end of the rifle the is the stock and which is the barrel. Will someone, anyone, please tell me how I was able to buy this so called AK-47 assault weapon DURING THE BAN IN 1996? http://www.themartialist.com/0704/myak.htm (second picture down from the top)

    The reason is because that particular weapon had a thumbhole stock instead of a pistol grip. That is THE ONLY difference between that and the ones you can buy now. Shoots the same ammuniton, the high capacity magazines were still available and legal to buy, they just didn’t come with the weapon when it was purchased.

    I’m so sick of the ignorance everywhere around this issue. Most of the people commenting in here are totally clueless.

  102. NWflyfisher says:

    Journalist’s Guide To Firearms Identification: http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f42/cid2001/journalismguide.jpg

  103. LOL, now that was funny! Thanks NWflyfisher I need to save that one!

  104. NW – too funny, thanks for the humour…

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0