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

[Lonestar_logic]

Okay, throwdown time, Gun Whacks.

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

Everyone in his life knew he was batshit crazy.

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

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

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

Because mental health records are not provided nor required for background checks. This law needs to be changed but the left doesn't want it changed.

 

[Defiant1]

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

But no one is going to die.

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

Fascist believe that an unarmed citizenry is the greatest idea ever

That wasn't the issue being discussed.

Let's try again.

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

Why is that a good idea?

Has he been adjudicated mentally incompetent?

We are a country of laws not ideas.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

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

Everyone in his life knew he was batshit crazy.

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

Every person should have the freedom to buy a gun. Buying a gun doesn't equate to mass murder, dullard.

With this sort of "logic", he shouldn't be allowed to buy a car, or a baseball bat, or a crowbar or any other assortment of things that can be used as weapons.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Plastic forks?

Pens?

Pencils?

BBQ shishkers?

A shovel?

hatchet?

 

[theHawk]

Okay, throwdown time, Gun Whacks.

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

Everyone in his life knew he was batshit crazy.

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

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

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

He was allowed to buy a gun because he was a free man.

Liberals don't want to lock up the mentally insane anymore, just give'em a pill and let them be on their way.

He shouldn't have had the freedom to buy a gun because he shouldn't had been free at all.

But, keep on blamming "gun nuts" because that's easier than addressing the real problem.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Plastic forks?

Pens?

Pencils?

BBQ shishkers?

A shovel?

hatchet?

Hands feet arms head

 

[martybegan]

Add to this argument another psychopath who given today's policy would have been able to buy the assault weapon. Now think of the consequences.

"Eric manufactured three more pipe bombs: the Charlie batch. Then he halted production until December. What he needed was guns. And that was becoming a problem.

Eric had been looking into the Brady Bill. Congress had passed the law restricting the purchase of most popular semiautomatic machine guns in 1993. A federal system of instant background checks would soon go into effect. Eric was going to have a hard time getting around that.

"**** you Brady!" Eric wrote in his journal. All he wanted was a couple of guns - "and thanks to your ******* bill I will probably not get any!" He wanted them only for personal protection, he joked: "Its not like I'm some psycho who would go on a shooting spree. fuckers."

Eric frequently made his research do double duty for both schoolwork and his master plan. He wrote up a short research assignment on the Brady Bill that week. It was a good idea in theory, he said, aside from the loopholes. The biggest problem was that checks applied only to licensed dealers, not private dealers. So two-thirds of the licensed dealers had just gone private. "The FBI just shot themselves in the foot," he concluded."

Eric was rational about his firepower. "As of this date I have enough explosives to kill about 100 people," he wrote. With axes, bayonets, and assorted blades, he could maybe take out ten more. That was as far as hand to-hand combat would get him. A hundred and ten people. "that just isn't enough!"

"Guns!" the entry concluded. "I need guns! Give me some ******* firearms! " p.280 'Columbine' by Dave Cullen [bold added]

There is no such thing as a semi-automatic machine gun. the writer of said article fails on that point alone.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressive psychopaths should not be allowed to hold political power

 

[Nosmo King]

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

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

What gun grabbers think is that by making it harder or impossible for ME to buy a gun, someone with no criminal record and a spotless mental health record, you will somehow magically prevent said crazy people from aquiring firearms.

Gun grabbers are also the same idiots who think calling something a "gun free zone" without actually providing a check perimeter and armed security will magically protect the people inside from gun violence.

I suggest look at the grabber's side logic first. You then realize its full of emotional idiocy and half assed ideas.

Certainly everyone could agree that each of our rights come with restrictions. Hell, Conservatives themselves would openly welcome a drastic repression of our most fundamental right; that of free speech. What other political group could work for a flag burning amendment? "Stop, Question and Frisk" has been procedure for the NYPD and there was no opposition from Conservatives for that program.

But Conservatives cannot rationalize those repressions with a need for background checks and waiting periods! They are flexible on the 1st and 4th amendment in order to maintain public safety, but not the 2nd!

 

[Nosmo King]

Progressive psychopaths should not be allowed to hold political power

Actually NO psychopath should hold power, but that doesn't seem to stop them.

 

[martybegan]

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

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

What gun grabbers think is that by making it harder or impossible for ME to buy a gun, someone with no criminal record and a spotless mental health record, you will somehow magically prevent said crazy people from aquiring firearms.

Gun grabbers are also the same idiots who think calling something a "gun free zone" without actually providing a check perimeter and armed security will magically protect the people inside from gun violence.

I suggest look at the grabber's side logic first. You then realize its full of emotional idiocy and half assed ideas.

Certainly everyone could agree that each of our rights come with restrictions. Hell, Conservatives themselves would openly welcome a drastic repression of our most fundamental right; that of free speech. What other political group could work for a flag burning amendment? "Stop, Question and Frisk" has been procedure for the NYPD and there was no opposition from Conservatives for that program.

But Conservatives cannot rationalize those repressions with a need for background checks and waiting periods! They are flexible on the 1st and 4th amendment in order to maintain public safety, but not the 2nd!

How would a waiting period have prevented ANY of the mass shootings mentioned? These were no spur of the moment attacks. These were well planned and prepared. So you are propsing something that would not prevent the problem. The same goes for background checks, which are already in place, and have been in place. background checks do not prevent someone who has just lost it if they do not have a criminal record, or a history of mental adjudication.

Also, people with libertarian leanings would never support a flag burning amendment, and oppose stop and frisk, so that dog doesnt hunt either. Liberatrians are the ones who mainly support gun rights, and this support is consistent with the other two positions, i.e. minimum goverment involvement in people's lives.

Rights can come with MINIMAL restrictions, and any restriction has to be based on an action that results in a criminal action. Yelling fire in a theatre when there is no fire, creating a panic is an action that results in damages and are thus punished. when people use a gun illegally, they are also punished.

Onerous restrictions on gun owners who have no intent or desire to perform a crime is like gagging everyone who enters a theatre on the assumption that they MAY yell fire and cause a panic.

 

[Nosmo King]

What gun grabbers think is that by making it harder or impossible for ME to buy a gun, someone with no criminal record and a spotless mental health record, you will somehow magically prevent said crazy people from aquiring firearms.

Gun grabbers are also the same idiots who think calling something a "gun free zone" without actually providing a check perimeter and armed security will magically protect the people inside from gun violence.

I suggest look at the grabber's side logic first. You then realize its full of emotional idiocy and half assed ideas.

Certainly everyone could agree that each of our rights come with restrictions. Hell, Conservatives themselves would openly welcome a drastic repression of our most fundamental right; that of free speech. What other political group could work for a flag burning amendment? "Stop, Question and Frisk" has been procedure for the NYPD and there was no opposition from Conservatives for that program.

But Conservatives cannot rationalize those repressions with a need for background checks and waiting periods! They are flexible on the 1st and 4th amendment in order to maintain public safety, but not the 2nd!

How would a waiting period have prevented ANY of the mass shootings mentioned? These were no spur of the moment attacks. These were well planned and prepared. So you are propsing something that would not prevent the problem. The same goes for background checks, which are already in place, and have been in place. background checks do not prevent someone who has just lost it if they do not have a criminal record, or a history of mental adjudication.

Also, people with libertarian leanings would never support a flag burning amendment, and oppose stop and frisk, so that dog doesnt hunt either. Liberatrians are the ones who mainly support gun rights, and this support is consistent with the other two positions, i.e. minimum goverment involvement in people's lives.

Rights can come with MINIMAL restrictions, and any restriction has to be based on an action that results in a criminal action. Yelling fire in a theatre when there is no fire, creating a panic is an action that results in damages and are thus punished. when people use a gun illegally, they are also punished.

Onerous restrictions on gun owners who have no intent or desire to perform a crime is like gagging everyone who enters a theatre on the assumption that they MAY yell fire and cause a panic.

So assuring the insane can get a gun right now is the most important part of the issue?!? Any restriction of access to deadly weaponry on the behalf of the insane makes for a constitutional crisis?

But, meanwhile, it is recognized that shouting "FIRE!" in a theater causes a public safety hazard. Yet arming the insane is not only a constitutional mandate, but absolutely necessary to maintain freedom and liberty! In spite of the threat to freedom and liberty faced by the victims of the insane, but constitutionally protected madman.

I guess we should really reconsider the effectiveness of gasoline as a fire suppressant.

 

[Katzndogz]

If it were not for the ACLU changing the law to prevent locking up those who are criminally insane Holmes would have been locked up.

Clean the streets, sweep up all the insane, and put them in mental facilities. Then there's no problem. Is the left going to go for that?

 

[martybegan]

Certainly everyone could agree that each of our rights come with restrictions. Hell, Conservatives themselves would openly welcome a drastic repression of our most fundamental right; that of free speech. What other political group could work for a flag burning amendment? "Stop, Question and Frisk" has been procedure for the NYPD and there was no opposition from Conservatives for that program.

But Conservatives cannot rationalize those repressions with a need for background checks and waiting periods! They are flexible on the 1st and 4th amendment in order to maintain public safety, but not the 2nd!

How would a waiting period have prevented ANY of the mass shootings mentioned? These were no spur of the moment attacks. These were well planned and prepared. So you are propsing something that would not prevent the problem. The same goes for background checks, which are already in place, and have been in place. background checks do not prevent someone who has just lost it if they do not have a criminal record, or a history of mental adjudication.

Also, people with libertarian leanings would never support a flag burning amendment, and oppose stop and frisk, so that dog doesnt hunt either. Liberatrians are the ones who mainly support gun rights, and this support is consistent with the other two positions, i.e. minimum goverment involvement in people's lives.

Rights can come with MINIMAL restrictions, and any restriction has to be based on an action that results in a criminal action. Yelling fire in a theatre when there is no fire, creating a panic is an action that results in damages and are thus punished. when people use a gun illegally, they are also punished.

Onerous restrictions on gun owners who have no intent or desire to perform a crime is like gagging everyone who enters a theatre on the assumption that they MAY yell fire and cause a panic.

So assuring the insane can get a gun right now is the most important part of the issue?!? Any restriction of access to deadly weaponry on the behalf of the insane makes for a constitutional crisis?

But, meanwhile, it is recognized that shouting "FIRE!" in a theater causes a public safety hazard. Yet arming the insane is not only a constitutional mandate, but absolutely necessary to maintain freedom and liberty! In spite of the threat to freedom and liberty faced by the victims of the insane, but constitutionally protected madman.

I guess we should really reconsider the effectiveness of gasoline as a fire suppressant.

The purpose is to make sure any attempt to prevent someone crazy from getting a gun cannot be used to stop ME from getting a gun because you or the government don't want me to have a gun "just because." Quite frankly we do not trust gun control people to stop at disarming people with mental issues because we KNOW what you want is to really disarm the rest of us. Its like taking steak cooking lessons from someone in PETA.

You are engaing in hyperbole, because you know your true goal isnt to just disarm nutters, but to disarm everyone else.

 

[Nosmo King]

If it were not for the ACLU changing the law to prevent locking up those who are criminally insane Holmes would have been locked up.

Clean the streets, sweep up all the insane, and put them in mental facilities. Then there's no problem. Is the left going to go for that?

Could you please cite the chapter in Mein Kampf where this policy is outlined? Are you willing to repress the rights of others just so the killing can continue?

 

[Nosmo King]

How would a waiting period have prevented ANY of the mass shootings mentioned? These were no spur of the moment attacks. These were well planned and prepared. So you are propsing something that would not prevent the problem. The same goes for background checks, which are already in place, and have been in place. background checks do not prevent someone who has just lost it if they do not have a criminal record, or a history of mental adjudication.

Also, people with libertarian leanings would never support a flag burning amendment, and oppose stop and frisk, so that dog doesnt hunt either. Liberatrians are the ones who mainly support gun rights, and this support is consistent with the other two positions, i.e. minimum goverment involvement in people's lives.

Rights can come with MINIMAL restrictions, and any restriction has to be based on an action that results in a criminal action. Yelling fire in a theatre when there is no fire, creating a panic is an action that results in damages and are thus punished. when people use a gun illegally, they are also punished.

Onerous restrictions on gun owners who have no intent or desire to perform a crime is like gagging everyone who enters a theatre on the assumption that they MAY yell fire and cause a panic.

So assuring the insane can get a gun right now is the most important part of the issue?!? Any restriction of access to deadly weaponry on the behalf of the insane makes for a constitutional crisis?

But, meanwhile, it is recognized that shouting "FIRE!" in a theater causes a public safety hazard. Yet arming the insane is not only a constitutional mandate, but absolutely necessary to maintain freedom and liberty! In spite of the threat to freedom and liberty faced by the victims of the insane, but constitutionally protected madman.

I guess we should really reconsider the effectiveness of gasoline as a fire suppressant.

The purpose is to make sure any attempt to prevent someone crazy from getting a gun cannot be used to stop ME from getting a gun because you or the government don't want me to have a gun "just because." Quite frankly we do not trust gun control people to stop at disarming people with mental issues because we KNOW what you want is to really disarm the rest of us. Its like taking steak cooking lessons from someone in PETA.

You are engaing in hyperbole, because you know your true goal isnt to just disarm nutters, but to disarm everyone else.

I guess when the logic in your argument gets punctured the thing to do is re-establish the goal posts. Throw out some paranoia about "gun control people" and their alleged 'agenda' and then rhetorically retrench and wait for the worst.

Mighty poor tactics if your opponent has already nullified your argument!

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Certainly everyone could agree that each of our rights come with restrictions. Hell, Conservatives themselves would openly welcome a drastic repression of our most fundamental right; that of free speech. What other political group could work for a flag burning amendment? "Stop, Question and Frisk" has been procedure for the NYPD and there was no opposition from Conservatives for that program.

But Conservatives cannot rationalize those repressions with a need for background checks and waiting periods! They are flexible on the 1st and 4th amendment in order to maintain public safety, but not the 2nd!

You are painting with much too broad of a brush there. Conservatives do not "welcome a drastic repression" of ANY of our rights, especially free speech. Yes, unfortunately some conservatives are for a flag burning amendment, just like some liberals are or euthanasia, but most of us agree with Charlie Daniels "I thank God we live in a country where you have the right to burn the flag, and I thank God we live in a country where you have the right to own a gun....that way I can shoot your a$$ if you try to burn mine!"

And few conservatives opposed NY's stop, question, and frisk...because there are few conservatives in NY.

About conservatives and background checks/waiting periods. There are many conservatives who agree with background checks. As a matter of fact there are ENOUGH conservatives who agreed with it to make it the law. Fortunately the legislators who wrote that law realized that the average citizen who wants to sell his property (a gun) to another citizen shouldn't have to do a background check, so they said we didn't need to.

So then, as always, businesses changed the way they do business to conform to the letter of the law... This is called the law of unintended consequences.

Try not to be so partisan.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When will Liberals bring their favorite gun control advocate, Adolf Hitler, back into the debate?

He only disarmed the Jews, ya know. Blondhaired blue eyed Aryans were well armed

 

[Boatswain2PA]

You keep making ridiculous leaps. "Assuring the insane can get a gun right now" is not, has not, and will never be important for anyone. However, assuring that a law-abiding citizen can purchase a firearm is. Big difference. Perhaps if you stop writing/thinking in such inflammatory tones you will be able to see the other side.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

To answer the original question.

As it relates to today: He can't own a gun because of the good, common sense gun laws.

As it relates to before he committed the atrocity: Because he has the RIGHT to due process before his other RIGHTS, such as his second amendment RIGHTS, are taken away.