Skip to main content

View Diary: RKBA: A Terrible Act of Domestic Terrorism (368 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm skeptical (7+ / 0-)

    But I respect your opinion.

    •  Also (9+ / 0-)

      While I doubt any substantial new gun control can be pushed through, given the current composition of the Congress and Supreme Court and the Court's recent rulings, I think that people who don't want at least common-sense limitations on legal gun purchases by the mentally ill who might have a greater chance of using their weapons to harm themselves or others, as this man did, are not thinking straight.

      •  I would not argue that point at all. (14+ / 0-)

        I'm curious as to how that would be implemented but like I mentioned elsewhere, I'm trying to not turn this RKBA diary into an issues diary with all the argumentativeness that brings. If you'd like to email me, I'd love to hear your point of view. not.christ at gmail.com

        (RKBA) Right to Keep and Bear Arms: interested in a DKos RKBA group? Email in profile. Share Our Wealth

        by KVoimakas on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 05:53:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  A great start would be tying law enforcement (16+ / 0-)

        grant money to states with compliance with the mental health portion of the NCIS database.

        As I mention in a link below, only 10%-20% of the mental health information that might disqualify a buyer gets into the database - I'd like to see that at 80%-90%.

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 06:31:08 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  that's a good idea and one that I could support (9+ / 0-)

          but it would not have mattered at all in this instance.  This guy had never been diagnosed as or adjudicated a mental defective.

          Unless you want to go with a "guilty until proven innocent" system where you need the permission of your family Doctor to get a gun license (this is what they do in the UK) there is nothing at all you can do to prevent people like this shooter from obtaining firearms.

          Fixing our broken mental health care system would be a good start and would probably prevent a few mass shootings from happening but even with a perfect health care system people are still going to fall through the cracks.

          In the end all we can do is seek to reduce the number of such events.  We'll never prevent all of them as long as we live in a free society.  The choice between a free society and a safe one is not a hard one to make.

          There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

          by Crookshanks on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 07:08:49 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Any system will have people slip through the (14+ / 0-)

            cracks; the important thing is to see if we can't make those cracks smaller.

            But life is risk. We can't ban and seize and confiscate our way to perfect safety.

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

            by Robobagpiper on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 07:34:34 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Fixing or funding? (8+ / 0-)

            Fixing our broken mental health care system

            I'm no expert but I guess better funding and better public and municipal support would enable the existing professionals to do what they already know how to do but lack staff and tools.

            "Life is not about waiting for the storms to pass... it's about learning how to dance in the rain." (unknown)

            by kck on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 08:07:12 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  both (7+ / 0-)

              The problems with my agency (which shall remain nameless, I do like being gainfully employed) don't have a lot to do with funding.  We have enough funding.

              Our problem is retaining good employees (the burnout rate in this industry is huge, as you'd imagine) and complying with mandates imposed on us by bureaucrats in Washington or Albany that aren't on the front lines.  We spend nearly a quarter of our budget on compliance, money that could instead be spent on salaries and benefits to help with our turnover problem.

              Understand that I'm not saying that you don't need some measure of regulation in this industry but the manner in which it's done is asinine.  We literally answer to four different agencies, all of whom have different (often conflicting) priorities for what we need to focus on and all of which assume that the other three aren't as important as they are.

              There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

              by Crookshanks on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 08:12:15 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Many countries require a physical and............ (6+ / 0-)

            psychological exam to show fitness in order to get a drivers license.  Spain is one of those countries.  In MN drivers who show a pattern of aggression must also undergo psychological exam to keep their license.

            I do not believe that everybody should have to undergo a mental health exam in order to purchase a firearm.  I would howver advocate for regulations that would put persons who have demonstrated a pattern of agression, have a TRO out on them or have been arrested for a violent crime or certain other crimes be put on a firearms no-buy list temporarilly.  They would remain on the list until it can be shown by a medical professional that they are mentally fit to have a firearm, until they are no longer under a TRO or until they gone through the legal process and there is a finding of not guilty, some extnuating circumstances and/or a medical professional signs off on their fitness. If not they stay on the list.  

            If you already possess a firearm then you would have to temporarilly surrender it to the authorities or remove them from your residence.  However, nobody would come to your home to to look for or confiscate them or investigate whether you own a firearm.  If you don't surrender or remove your firearms and your caught you go to jail.  There should be a harsh penalty for those who are caught.

            None of the reasons why a person is on the list need be shared with the firearms seller when they call into to do the background check on the person. No information is shared with the dealers now (unless there is a warrant for you) you get approved, wait listed, or denied.

            •  I like most of those ideas, though I'd want to (8+ / 0-)

              know more about "demonstrating a pattern of aggression" before I could support it as a disqualification.  Do you mean they have had run-ins with LEOs or actually been convicted of something?

              I get nervous when the police gain the power to deny rights without criminal convictions.  NYPD will deny you a firearms license if you have arrests in your background without convictions.  That disturbs me on many levels.

              There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

              by Crookshanks on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 12:14:55 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I am just sketching a big picture. (2+ / 0-)

                a definition for pattern of aggression is key and i don't really have one.  this article is a good overview of the MN law. in the course of my research i have not found a black letter standard. there will need to be some lattitude for leo to make a determination based on the facts and circumstance of a particular case.  for example if they receive a call for service about a person and the person is obviously unstable then based on the evidence the person should go on the list. as a matter of due process i think the state should provide a free opportunity for the person to be evaluated by a mental health professional if they cannot afford to see one of their own.  however until they are examined they go on the list.

                this morning i heard a piece on local npr about families' dealing with schizophrenic loved ones.  it was repeatedly noted how difficult it is to get someone committed and then find affordable treatment.  a father talked about having to call the police because he believed his son's condition was then a serious threat to the safety of his son and others.  his son had not assaulted anyone so the police could not do anything though they could see that the man was clearly delusional. i think that there should be a way for police to get such a person on this list maybe not arrest them but issue a summons for appearance.  but how does a sick person understand this?

                there are lots of questions but i think the idea does merit some consideration/discussion.

                •  sorry, I can't get behind that.... (5+ / 0-)

                  ... it's guilty until proven innocent.  Not something I can support.

                  There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                  by Crookshanks on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 12:43:56 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  my thinking on having to surrender a firearm is.. (2+ / 0-)

                    admitteldly not well thought out at this point. i don't see it as being guilty until proven innocent but maybe a denial of due process.  i think that due process checks could more easily be put into place for a no-buy list.  establish a similar standard placed on leo like those that must be met to conduct a search of a person.  i don't recall what it is... based on professional of the officer experience there is reason to believe the person is a threat because of xyz.  i don't see going on the list as guilty until proven innocent, it doesn't make being sick a crime.  what it does is temporarilly prevent the person from purchasing a firearm.  there would be due process for that person to challenge that.  such as the current nics delay and denial procedure.  if the state does not provide the person with the opportunity to see a mental health professional at no expense within say 10 business days then the person is taken off the list. many states mandate that if a ccw applicant has not received a responce to the application in a certain amount of time then the ccw must be issued without further wait.  if a person does not want to wait for a state provided evaluation they can pay to have their own done.  if the person wants to challenge the evaluation they have a right to a hearing akin to what is granted persons who apply for and are denied ss disability benefits... how sick is this person?

                    •  you are thinking it would be fair because you (4+ / 0-)

                      live in a relatively free state.  Move to New York City where every single institution from the Mayor's office on down is hostile towards the 2nd amendment.  Then tell me how comfortable you would be with the notion of a mental health professional hired by the city determining whether or not you can exercise your civil rights.

                      I understand the problem you are trying to solve but the solution you are proffering would give the police the power to take away someones 2nd amendment rights without so much as charging them with a crime.  The fact that you'd provide an appeals process is small comfort.  It would be child's play to rig such a process and you can bet money that anti-RKBA jurisdictions would do exactly that.

                      Seriously, jurisdictions like NYC will deny you a firearms license if you have a bad driving record, have been fired from a previous job or have arrests in your background without convictions.  You think they need more power?  That scares me.

                      There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                      by Crookshanks on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 01:23:11 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

          •  Crookshanks, I'm curious: if the CC had an order (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ER Doc, theatre goon, MichaelNY

            barring him from campus, doesn't that fall under the same rubric as a protective order banning somebody from contact (with a witness, ex, spouse, child, etc.)?

            If there's a restraining order against you in Texas (and it's in the database) you can't get a CCW permit -- or at least, you couldn't the way the law was written before the current Lege got hold of it.

            Peace only imagines what that insane clown posse in Austin will do this go-round. I can almost see them issuing hunting permits and bounties on ... never mind. If I say it out loud one of 'em will think it's a good idea.

            LBJ & Lady Bird, Sully Sullenberger, Molly Ivins, Barbara Jordan, Ann Richards, Drew Brees: Texas is No Bush League! -7.50,-5.59

            by BlackSheep1 on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 02:39:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't know how it would work.... (5+ / 0-)

              .... but I think it's a moot point as I don't believe the college bothered to obtain any such court order.  They just had their police escort him off campus and tell him not to come back without a letter from a mental health professional.

              To me that would have been the chance to get him the help that he needed.  Instead they solved THEIR problem without worrying about OUR problem.  This seems to be a recurring theme with cases like this.  People come out of the woodwork after the fact saying "I'm not surprised this person did this" but they never bother to try and get that person help before they snap.

              From where I sit it really seems like this all could have been avoided.  Had this man gotten treatment six people would still be alive and he'd be living a relatively normal life rather than being on the express train to death row.

              Seven lives ended and countless others scarred forever because our mental health care system sucks.  I really wish the Democrats would be talking about this rather than ranting about guns and/or Sarah Palin.  I thought you guys were supposed to be the party that looked out for the social safety net?  I'd be behind you on this issue 100% but most of your mainstream leaders and pundits are too busy blaming guns and right wing pundits for this catastrophe.

              Words can not express my disappointment in our political process right now :(

              There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

              by Crookshanks on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 06:58:03 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Crookshanks: from your lips to Rachel Maddow's (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Crookshanks, KVoimakas

                ears.

                It's not the big bad scary black Glock or the extended magazine that's the problem here.

                It's the crazy person who doesn't get the help s/he needs.

                Really.

                I mean, honestly, we could talk all night about how awful it is that a Glock will pass thru a metal detector, and how you ought not be able to buy a 30-round magazine for any handgun, but ...

                Nobody's talking about Jared Lee Loughner, 22.

                Nobody's talking about Seung-Hui Cho, 23.

                Nobody's talking about the whole host of others  who, for whatever reason possessed them, opened fire on masses of people.

                Everybody's talking about how awful the guns are.

                Nobody's talking about the lack of mental health screenings, or the paucity of affordable care, or the backlog of reports to make the FBI background check system a real-time, working tool to keep crazy people from getting guns.

                It's so much simpler to focus on the guns.

                LBJ & Lady Bird, Sully Sullenberger, Molly Ivins, Barbara Jordan, Ann Richards, Drew Brees: Texas is No Bush League! -7.50,-5.59

                by BlackSheep1 on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 08:55:52 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  there's another list, going back to '66 (3+ / 0-)

                  I don't know if Charles Whitman is the first such incident, but I think what happened at the UT Tower that year might've been the oldest one this story's writer found.

                  LBJ & Lady Bird, Sully Sullenberger, Molly Ivins, Barbara Jordan, Ann Richards, Drew Brees: Texas is No Bush League! -7.50,-5.59

                  by BlackSheep1 on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 09:03:59 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  minor nitpick but the Glock will NOT pass through (4+ / 0-)

                  a metal detector without setting it off.

                  The slide, firing pin, extractor, magazine spring, magazine itself and ammunition all contain more than enough metal to set off metal detectors.  The only part of the Glock that's polymer is the frame.  The magazine has a polymer coating but it's still metal.  The slide is metal.  The springs and firing pin are metal.

                  There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                  by Crookshanks on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 06:51:07 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I stand corrected. There *is* some polymer (0+ / 0-)

                    pistol, though, isn't there, that'll go thru a metal detector unfound? Heard talk about it on the TV machine last night.

                    As of sometime in the late 1980s, supposedly, banned in the USA, though.

                    Hmm. Wonder if I'd ought to go down to harbor freight and buy myself a ceramic paring knife, to replace the little one that lives in my backpack with my spoon, immersion heater, cutting board and folding cup for travel. The whole outfit occupies about the space and mass of one of those 'briefcase thermos bottles' and makes life so much easier if one wishes to eat in one's room ... Last time I checked a bag with it was 'o7, and I bet it wouldn't go aboard today...

                    LBJ & Lady Bird, Sully Sullenberger, Molly Ivins, Barbara Jordan, Ann Richards, Drew Brees: Texas is No Bush League! -7.50,-5.59

                    by BlackSheep1 on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 12:51:28 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I don't see how it would be possible.... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      KVoimakas

                      ... you can't make a gun barrel (needs to contain pressures ranging from 17,000 PSI to 40,000 PSI, depending on the cartridge) out of polymer.  You can't make a firing pin out of polymer.  You can't make cartridge cases or bullets out of polymer.

                      I suppose you could make a plastic air gun that shot plastic projectiles that would be deadly enough at close ranges but that's not exactly a firearm is it?

                      There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                      by Crookshanks on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 08:20:34 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  well, you know, in the days of Conan Doyle (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        KVoimakas

                        they were used in murders and assassinations -- air-guns, that is.

                        LBJ & Lady Bird, Sully Sullenberger, Molly Ivins, Barbara Jordan, Ann Richards, Drew Brees: Texas is No Bush League! -7.50,-5.59

                        by BlackSheep1 on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 01:37:57 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site