A 24-year old with long diagnosed bipolar disorder and a history of threatening behavior and violence shot and killed two strangers, a couple from Texas, after a woman he’d just met rejected him.

How the hell he had a gun….

I think *ANY* conviction for assault or battery (or any violent act against another human) should result in in a lifetime ban from owning one.

And any use of a gun in any crime should result in life without parole, no exceptions, exemptions, or exclusions.

with a gun. Sorry but no points for waiting until AFTER someone is harmed to THINK about taking some action.

The OP was about pro-active before-the-injury action that might be taken.

Wanna' join our side and think about preventing the 'bad guy' getting the gun?

I've always been of both the opinions that owning and carrying a gun, and using it in defense of life and property is an inalienable right, being *very* suspicious of any arbitrary 'character' type of discretionary power being allowed to law enforcement *AND* of the opinion that there are dangerous, idiotic, irresponsible and incompetent people who should not have one.

Obviously, anyone who has ever been convicted of using or threatening to use violence against a person or group shouldn't be armed, nor should anyone using a gun in a crime ever, under any circumstances, see the outside of a jail cell- just as anyone attempting to violently gain entry against my to my house, or threatening my person needs to rapidly assume room temperature.

still no thoughts on prevention? Strictly in favor of waiting until someone is shot and then punishing someone.

Considering the number of people who legally buy a gun within days of becoming the 'bad guy' you as a "law abiding citizen" have no interest in prevention?

background check instead of a partial criminal records search. Include all public social media posts, interviews with family and employer as well as local police.

Better yet a permit to purchase as exists in a few states already.

ETA: I'd also place all semi auto firearms under the NFA.

I think we disagree on this. What’s the purpose of putting semiautomatic firearms on the NFA?

What’s the purpose of reviewing social media posts? What are we looking for and how would it impact a purchase? Just because I disagree with someone’s point of view doesn’t mean they can’t own a gun.

Why does an employer need to know that someone is purchasing a gun and what can they offer to the equation?

This all seems very subjective. Let’s just say that a felon can’t own a firearm and someone convicted of domestic violence whether a felony or not cannot own a firearm.

they use to commit murder? If we go your way why do anything at all? Just issue guns to everyone including felons 'cause they'll just get one anyway, right?

But I'll belabor this a bit more and cater to your wish for answers to the obvious.

Social media; so many mass murderers have social media history that broadcasts their intent to kill. If you aren't aware of this I don't know what to say.

Employer and family; who is better qualified to know a person's character and the possibility that they may want to harm themselves or others? Who is better qualified to judge mental stability? Ya know that whole mental health thing that is the reason for all gun violence according to gunners?

Is it subjective? Not any more than a partial criminal records check or the adjudicated opinion of a jury of peers.

As for the NFA, the reason the weapons that are currently on the restricted list are on that list is because of their unique lethallity. I see no difference between that lethallity and that of a "MSR" that can fire semi-automatically at the rate of 100 rounds a minute and be reloaded in less than 2 seconds.

Or you just ignored my point that we should not allow felons to own guns, or anyone convicted of domestic violence.

So what’s the defining line on social media posts? What are you looking for in those posts that objectively would deny someone a gun purchase?

You really think an employer is qualified to judge mental stability or a person’s “character”? Wow. What other rights would you deny based on an employer’s view of mental stability? And what’s the threshold for granting an employer say over someone’s constitutional rights? What if she worked for the employee for a day? Or a week? Is a month enough? Full time or part time? What if you are an Uber driver and never actually interact with your employer?

And yes, everything you propose is entirely subjective, and you don’t even want to leave it up to a jury of peers after the submission of evidence. Just say you don’t think anyone should have access to semiautomatic firearms at all.

terminal point.

Employers and family? Yes I do think an employer and family are qualified to judge a person's character. They are also capable of not commenting at all which many would unless there is a reason to speak up. Families and employers (even domestic partners) evaluate evidence of character and mental stability every day all day. Just like a jury. So do you. If you lived with someone who showed signs of depression and self harm would you be capable of seeing it? If your son belonged to a white supremicist group that advocated the death of all black people would you advocate arming him?

A jury's verdict is subjective. lt only requires belief beyond a reasonable doubt. That's good enough to take a perso's life but somehow you can't see it as good enough to restrict access to deadly weapons. You position is that there can be absolutely no doubt whatsoever. Machine logic, ones and zeros. Life and society and the law don't work that way. You don't work that way. Constitutional rights all have limits, period. It's about time gunners realize that applies to the holy 2nd as well as the others.

I'll stop talking about this topic with you. It is pointless. Reason and judgment cannot penetrate the religion that is gun love.

I asked about employer specifically. Id say that family and employer are two very different things. Any interest in responding to that question about employers?

And are you advocating for denying guns to people whose viewpoint you don’t like? Are we also denying them the right to free speech and free assembly?

And on edit, are you proposing that we ban all private ownership of semiautomatic firearms?

I am tired of your jumping to concussions (not a typo, just indicative of the great leaps you take while putting opinions in my mind if not words in my mouth).

Where, pray tell, have I mentioned viewpoints? I mean other than restricting guns from those advocating for the death of people based on race? I did allude to that in my last post.

How do you make the leap from rights having limits to denying free speech or assembly?

In what way have I proposed banning private ownership of anything?

You're not good at this are you? I mean civil discourse. It shows in the way you ascribe views to me that I do not hold or advocate. The way you over reach in trying to make a point and the red herrings you create for me to pursue, which I won't.

Good day, Sir.

That’s a serious thank you. Civil discourse is good. I’m trying to understand where we differ.

The NFA effectively bans private ownership of certain types of firearms. Do you think that all semiautomatic firearms should also effectively be banned? You did state that the NFA should apply to all semiautomatic weapons.

But I disagree that you’ve provided any real response to the employer issue. Why should employers have any input into any private right, and what are the guideposts?

The NFA does not ban ownership of anything. Or didn't you know that? To better inform you, the NFA imposes a tax stamp for the purchase of restricted firearms, imposes a stringent background check and requires registration of the weapons with the BATF&E. It's existance also points out that the right to keep and bear is not unlimited. I've already explained why I think semi-autos belong on the list or didn't you read that? Leaped over it on the way to a concussion I guess

Are you afraid of not passing the background check? Is that it? Sorry I'm just projecting on you as you do to me.

Now when you get past the passive agressive syndrome and want civil discourse maybe we can do this again. No time soon I fear.

Last time, good day to you. Consider yourself ghosted.

The personal attacks are very unbecoming. Since you have no answer to my questions, and I’ve been “ghosted” I’ll move on to folks who are interested in defending their position instead of making ad hominem attacks. Best.

About 20-25% of Democrats are gun owners. Would you kick them out of the party?

Law abiding citizens don't commit murder. People that have committed crimes are no longer "law abiding". Wanna join our side, call for imprisonment of individuals that violate firearms laws, hospitalization of those needing mental health care, and not put obstacles in the way of actual lawful citizens? I mean, we live in the computer age, correct? What can a sheriff's dept. do in 30 days that it can't do in 7?

that they passed a background check, have committed no recorded felonies and therefore are law abiding citizens.

Or are you saying that the required background checks leave something to be desired and are ineffective?

Perhaps your point is that once someone commits a crime with a gun they bought before they committed that crime retroactively are not law abiding?

There are already enhanced sentences for use of guns in crimes in most states but that happens AFTER someone is injured. You okay with that? Wait until a crime happens and only THEN consider some remedy?

I'm just looking for some kinda idea of what the hell constitutes a law abiding citizen that legally buys a gun and why so many of them kill people. Can ya' help me out here?

1. Background checks are limited to what information is/ is allowed to be put in the system. I have been stating for quite a while that NICS need updating, and quickly. Perhaps the HIPAA act should be slightly modified, also, allowing those that have been threatening/truly unbalanced to be placed in the system as well. I know, this is a touchy subject for some, but mental instability should be treated as a possible "switch" for violence, especially if the individual is showing signs.

2. Legally buying a gun, and then, sometime down the road, using it for a heretofore unplanned crime, is an impossibility to predict. Waiting times are not effective. Background checks are not effective. The only effective way to handle this, is to make ALL guns illegal. Not gonna happen. Thankfully, I'm sure that this is a small piece of the pie, taking away suicides, which kinda fall under par.1.

3. Enhanced sentences. Yeah. How often are they actually used, or are they used more often to get a "plea" to a reduced charge? My belief is, that committers of violent crimes should be locked up, and for longer, if a gun is used, but it seems a lot of cities/states aren't doing that. Someone commits a class 2 murder, gets 8 years, out in 5. Fair? No. But that's how our system is running things at times. Tired of hearing of a killings, and the news is "Person XXX, accused of multiple murders, has an extensive rap sheet. Locked up for 1 year on a recent violent assault charge, out on parole 6 months later." If a lot of these criminals were in jail for the time they SHOULD have received for their crime, a lot of these killings would go away.

4. "what the hell constitutes a law abiding citizen that legally buys a gun and why so many of them kill people" Well, the person in the OP was not that law abiding, really, as he was making threats against individuals/place of business. Take away suicides, take away those that technically should have not been able to purchase firearms, and I think the actual number of "lawful citizen" crimes will be a rather small percentage.

Hope this helps you out trying to understand my position.

On point one: The background check isn't a background check. It is a partial criminal records search. 40% of reporting agencies don't because it's all voluntary. There are periods that the FBI can't issue a crime report because not enough agencies report data. Further the check doesn't look a social media that so often contains hate speech, threats and signals of self harm. Beyond that it doesn't contact the people who are most qualified to comment on the fitness of gun ownership: Family and Employer. Perhaps throw in LEO.

On point two: Leaping to the extreme of either/or, one/zero or guns/take all guns is a false choice. There are a host of things that can mitigate the carnage. Look at point one above. How about adding semi autos to the NFA list? How about safe storage laws? How about MADD approach to gun ownership?

Point 3: It seems that you are aware of what I've said already; there are laws against using guns in crime and enhanced sentences. That they aren't enforced is another issue, mostly funding. Take the ATF for instance. They are charged with policing the gun distribution system yet funding and staffing won't allow more than a small % of dealership inspections. When an executive order directs an action the NRA and NSSF is strong enough to pressure congress to defeat it. What, as a responsible gun owner, have you personally done to change that? Until the vast majority if gun owners like yourself get involved at the grass roots level it won't change and the whole issue of gun ownership will be under scrutiny.

Point 4: That's exactly what I've said. He shouldn't have had a gun but he did. He did for all the reasons I've given above.

Look, I don't give a lot of money to the anti violence movement but I give what I can. I promote my viewpoint here and other places whenever I can. I am active in bringing up gun violence AND gun safety legislation every opportunity I have. I attend demonstrations and add my number to the crowd. Join me on this. I'm not your enemy. Inaction is your enemy.

Fewer crimes. Seems our arrival at such differs in view.

1. I agree, it isn't a full background check, that's just the vernacular in use. As far as social media, other constitutional hurdles must be overcome, or some folks will just think you're trying for a pure police state. As far as family/employer go, family isn't reliable/accurate enough at times. Haven't actually visited 3 of my 4 siblings in several years. B-day cards, C-mas cards, occasional e-mail is about it. Hardly enough to determine a go/no go on a constitutional right. And, I'm retired, so no current employer. LEO? They don't know anything about me. Because I don't break the law. A few years back, they were calling for a large snowfall (10-12&quot in our area. I have a 6-wheel drive 5-ton military surplus truck. Went to the city cops, told them that if necessary, I would volunteer my time/vehicle if needed for an emergency outside any plowed area. (Thankfully, the forecast was double what we actually got.) The dispatcher at the window didn't have the foggiest idea who I was, or how long I had lived in town (Over 20 years at same address.)

2.Read my #2 again. That scenario is completely unpredictable, and the only way to 100% stop it, is for there to be NO guns. Semi auto's on the NFA list won't stop the guy with a revolver, or a pump gun, or a bolt gun. You worry about the rate of fire, but the guy in the Pulse nightclub had all the time in the world. Could have used a muzzleloader, in fact. Same as Uvalde. Safe storage has no effect if the one storing the gun is going to be the one committing the crime. Or live-in family member, who kills you and breaks open the safe (Sandy Hook).

3. Funding isn't the problem with enforcing/sentencing. DA's, judges are at fault here. As far as executive orders, that's not how our system is supposed to work. EO's are used to get around the system. My job is to promote/elect congressmen that will stand up for what's right, not whatever the current lobbyist with a fistful of cash says.

to eliminate all guns. Nothing else is possible. Let the record show that I didn't say that.

That bit of silliness aside:

Public postings on social media are not an invasion of privacy or any other constitutional right.

If LEO knows nothing about you it means there's no grounds to restrict your purchase, right? Same with estranged family. However not everybody is you. Some people are well known to LEO and that's for one of two reasons: they're active in the community in a good way or they're active in a bad way.

Funding is for sure an issue. Otherwise the NRA and NSSF wouldn't work so hard at restricting ATF funding and medical research into gun violence.

As for your revisitation of #2 I just don't know how to respond. That's just the most -- never mind I don't want the post hidden.

Can't predict crimes, but if those with long rap sheets are actually locked up for committing felonies, they won't be on the street to commit more. And, you did say to put semi-auto's in the NFA. That is severely restricting access to the public. Takes 9 months or so NOW, to get a stamp back through the NFA. Imagine adding millions of more stamps, effective immediately. It would take years to clear the backlog, basically "eliminating" access to these firearms. Eliminating firearms completely, is the only way to eliminate firearms violence completely. Countries with EXTREME regulation still have firearms violence. It's the criminals running around free that contribute to most of these problems.

As far as social media, would posts in "private" count as public? I mean, there's public posts, and not-so-public posts. Will the Govt be allowed to look at ALL posts? And who is the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes a "bad" post? Remember, politics can shift with the wind, so what you may be considering as a "restricted" post, may be allowed, and your posts be on the "bad" list a few years later.

Funding: Searching for possible criminals should be funded. Trying to make criminals out of law abiding should not.

Post #2: If you can't tell me what's wrong, well, I can't fix it. Was anything I said technically incorrect???

*AFTER* constitutional carry is affirmed for everyone in all states, the SCOTUS affirms that no state or local government can have the slightest control, input, or authority over what a law-abiding citizen can purchase, own, or carry, and that full criminal and civil immunity is established for *ALL* cases of the use of force against anyone attempting to deprive a citizen of life or property.

Once reasonable gun rights are finally recognized for all law abiding citizens, everywhere (except on private property of those who do not allow them) then we can begin a discussion for the legal means of identifying who should *not* have them and implementing restrictions. I would say that if you can't carry, you shouldn't be able to vote, and vice versa, but I will not accept anything that makes it harder to purchase, carry and- if necessary use- a firearm than it is to vote in an election.

Until reasonable rights to keep and bear arms are established to the degree that no extrinsic authority can control what a law-abiding citizen can buy, own, or carry, nope, not the slightest interest in interacting with gun control advocates.

could possibly ask for.

I look forward to your weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth as your failure to to understand the constitution or the will of your fellow citizens dawns, however dimly.

Anyone who believes that should be classified as a restricted person.

For confirming exactly how seriously you should be taken.


I do hope you have a good source of grief counseling when the 1934 Firearms act and the 1968 Gun Control act are tossed out as blatantly unconstitutional (hopefully next SCOTUS term).

As a law abiding citizen and a responsibe gun owner?

you or I should be allowed to purchase, carry, or use for self-defense a firearm, nor does any other misuse.

There is simply *nothing* that changes or can ever change the equation that you, or I, should, unless deemed incompetent in a court of law, be able to purchase and carry any weapon anywhere we wish. No statistics, no incidents, no number of any kind. Nothing.

Personally- if gun safety was taught in schools as it used to be, with guns being a standard thing in all households and pretty much all parents aware of proper firearms safety, the numbers would be much lower. I, personally, see it as parental incompetence and as no different than a kid playing with matches setting the house on fire.

require guns be safely stored in homes that have children present? It is not the responsibility of the state to protect it's most vulnerable?

Last edited Tue Jun 27, 2023, 08:27 PM - Edit history (1)

If they are that irresponsible (although any kid over the age of 6 should have been taught to never touch any firearm and let an adult know immediately if they come across one) they shouldn't have kids in the house, at all

who have guns what about other abuses? Does the State have an interest in protecting the child from poisoning? Is a gun left out different from legal marijuana gummy bears?

I'll be interested in discussing them once my RKBA rights are no longer on the negotiating table.

Starting point for any discussion is, as I said above, an absolute, irrefutable, and unchallenged acknowledgment that no entity has the say in what I purchase, carry, or use to defend my life or property; then we can discuss the cases where any governmental entity can propose restrictions on who can have what, where, outside of the same strictures attached to, say, voting.

Until even the most recalcitrant gun controller has the absolute inexorable and unquestionable reality that they have no say in what I buy or carry, nor that anyone has any legal or civil claim if I verifiably use force to defend my life or property planted firmly and permanently in front of them, we shall not give a nanometer to any further restrictions on firearms.

If you want 'a discussion', the starting point is that unless someone is impartially adjudicated to be incompetent to own or carry firearms- a standard that should be the same as for voting and require the same level of evidence as any other court case resulting in the removal of rights- they may do as they please unless on the private property of someone who prohibits same. Stop even talking about changing that and most of us are quite willing to go to great lengths to identify and assist in the removal from society of the truly dangerous folks. Nearly all of us would love to assist in teaching gun safety, something that would do more to prevent the deaths you mention than all the confiscations and limitations your heart could desire. If every high school had a CMP rifle team and every citizen who wanted a good quality rifle or pistol from the national surplus merely had to go through a few nights of practice and learning to be able to purchase one, you'd have a safer, not a more dangerous population.

It's not about your RKBA. I just showed you that 164 children die from guns carelessly left around the house. That is something that can be easily addressed without touching the 2nd. Does the State have an interest in this one narrow aspect of gun possession and child safety?

It isn't about buying or owning or carrying guns. It's about the safety of innocent people and the State's interest in protecting them.

Does the State have an interest in protecting children from negligent gun owners?

Please, it's a yes/no question.

Have a good evening, I'll see you tomorrow 'cause it's late here.

Pure and simple.

The answer is "No"; the incompetence of any parent or parents is not a sufficient reason to restrict the 2nd amendment rights of anyone other than those adjudicated to be incompetent. Period.
Hope you had a great evening.

Bothering you.

If the State has no interest in " parenting" as you call it suppose the parent puts a child at risk of harm in another way, for instance leaving a toddler alone for days? I'm asking to see if you see guns as a special category or if you think the State has no interest in children's welfare in general.

The state has, and should have to power to remove children from the homes of parents who through abuse, neglect, incompetence, or other factors are unable to provide for them. This includes leaving firearms where a child to young to understand what they are (or an older one who is not trained to leave them alone and let an adult know asap) can access them, exactly the same as if they left fentanyl pills on a coffee table or let child pornographers babysit the kids for an afternoon.

Just as I am quite willing to admit there are people who shouldn't have guns; I've had the misfortune of such as neighbors. However I disagree with the principle that since *some* people will misuse something that everyone or many should be prohibited from it, be that voting, rearing children, having guns, writing, making speeches; I am against prior restraint as the default but obviously support removing rights and privileges from those who have been officially and formally adjudicated incapable of using same, be that taking away guns from a violent moron, placing children in foster care, or disqualifying a voter because they have a Trump '24 sticker on their big-assed smoke belching truck

Rights can, and sometimes should be removed; we put people (way too many and way disproportionally BIPOC and poor) in jail all the time, we disqualify them from voting, we take kids away, of course there are people who should have their guns taken away and told if they ever touch another one they going to jail for a long time. But all of these can (in my opinion) only come after due process, not merely because someone might do something wrong.

Once we get to the point that the people who hate guns, hate the idea of armed self defense, and consider the 2nd a barbaric anachronism admit that the *default* status for a citizen is to be armed if they wish, I think most gun owning voters would be more than willing to *then* discuss processes for licensing concealed carry and means and methods of identifying potential mass shooters.

We are, however, not going to trust adding on more restrictions and rules on top of the unclear clusterfuck of current regulation because a LOT of us believe that all the talk of 'preventing mass shootings' and such is merely subterfuge for establishing as a standard that there is no right to armed defense (except for the rich, politicians, and celebrities regardless of political affiliation). In other words an earned part of the hostility towards gun control advocates is because so many pretty much admit what they *really* want is no guns anywhere except in the hands of the cops even as they also claim they are merely pushing for 'common sense' gun control.

Regards.