BREAKING NEWS: JAMES HOLMES NOT GUILTY!

H

Howey

Banned
Last edited:
Howey said:
How many dozens of years will it take for him to go to court now? It is a victory of the wrong sort.
Click to expand...

Dozens of years? Do you have any actual concept of how our judicial system works? The mental evaluation will take months, not decades.
 
It's actually a victory for those who want to see universal background checks....or.will be if he is indeed deemed incompetent to stand trial. Which, BTW....rarely works.

This is exactly the kind of person we don't want to have firearms in this country. Yet, he got them.
 
Steelplate said:
It's actually a victory for those who want to see universal background checks....or.will be if he is indeed deemed incompetent to stand trial. Which, BTW....rarely works.

This is exactly the kind of person we don't want to have firearms in this country. Yet, he got them.
Click to expand...

Background checks already exist for all but private sales. Unless the government allows everyone access to the national database, then how do you propose private sales go through the background check process?

Also... if a person has no history of mental illness, how would it have prevented him from obtaining the weapons? (not to mention he could also have purchased illegally... granted it would be harder)
 
Steelplate said:
It's actually a victory for those who want to see universal background checks....or.will be if he is indeed deemed incompetent to stand trial. Which, BTW....rarely works.

This is exactly the kind of person we don't want to have firearms in this country. Yet, he got them.
Click to expand...
[h=1]Democrat controlled Senate rejects background checks on gun purchases.[/h]
So much for that whine.
 
Superfreak said:
Background checks already exist for all but private sales. Unless the government allows everyone access to the national database, then how do you propose private sales go through the background check process?

Also... if a person has no history of mental illness, how would it have prevented him from obtaining the weapons? (not to mention he could also have purchased illegally... granted it would be harder)
Click to expand...

One of two ways...and the individual States would decide.

1. For every private sale...the parties go to a dealer. This method, I am not a big fan of. I can see huge burdens in our more sparsely inhabited States.

2. Make it part of the Driver's license/Photo ID process. You get your.license renewed, the background check is done...if you pass, you get a checkmark under "firearms eligible" or what have you. If you are convicted of a violent crime or deemed insane, that checkmark is removed from your license...the check would be readministered every time you renew. This makes the most sense to me.
 
NOVA said:
Democrat controlled Senate rejects background checks on gun purchases.

So much for that whine.
Click to expand...

And yet, the last I heard, something near 90% of Americans WANT universal background checks. Seems like a disconnect to me.

Do we blame the Democrats?

Faced with a decision either to remove substantial new gun restrictions from the bill or to allow it to fall to a filibuster next week, Senate leaders plan to put it on hold...More than 50 senators — including a few Republicans, but lacking a handful of Democrats from more conservative states — had signaled their support for the gun bill, not enough to reach the 60-vote threshold to overcome a filibuster.

So, is this a failure of "just" the Senate Dems or a failure caused by the filibuster rules, or a failure on the part of each individual senator that voted it down? I would say (and I haven't looked up the exact count) that if 90 % of the R's voted against it, they have 90% of the responsibility and if 10% of the Ds voted against it they have 10% of the responsibility and if the majority of them all were willing to vote FOR it and they still couldn't get it past a filibuster, the the senate rules are 100% responsible.

This is just another one of those, lets blame Obama & the Dems for things the overwhelming majority of the Republicans make sure don't happen.
 
Superfreak said:
Background checks already exist for all but private sales. Unless the government allows everyone access to the national database, then how do you propose private sales go through the background check process?
Click to expand...

In California, private sales go through a federal dealer for about a $10 fee, and the dealer does the checking.

In terms of Holmes - if he's locked up in an institution for decades, I'm ok with it being a mental hospital instead of prison. But don't want him on the street any time soon.
 
NOVA said:
[h=1]Democrat controlled Senate rejects background checks on gun purchases.[/h]
So much for that whine.
Click to expand...

Ummm...there are only 52 Dems in the Senate...needed 60 to pass...Harry Reid voted no as a procedural maneuver that allows it to be brought up again.

Four other Dems voted no...but four GOPers voted yes. Dems do not control the Senate when you need 60 to pass.
 
Superfreak said:
Background checks already exist for all but private sales. Unless the government allows everyone access to the national database, then how do you propose private sales go through the background check process?

Also... if a person has no history of mental illness, how would it have prevented him from obtaining the weapons? (not to mention he could also have purchased illegally... granted it would be harder)
Click to expand...

This just is NOT true.
An old term GIGO (Garbage In - Garbage Out) applies. Many states and local jurisdictions simply do no cooperate with the national database. So, even when checks are made, it is far from complete or accurate. And when a gun seller sets up at a gun show every day or every weekend and claims these are "private sales" and it is not a business covered by background check laws, who do they think is being fooled? LOOPHOLE-LOOPHOLE-LOOPHOLE!
 
Steelplate said:
One of two ways...and the individual States would decide.

1. For every private sale...the parties go to a dealer. This method, I am not a big fan of. I can see huge burdens in our more sparsely inhabited States.

2. Make it part of the Driver's license/Photo ID process. You get your.license renewed, the background check is done...if you pass, you get a checkmark under "firearms eligible" or what have you. If you are convicted of a violent crime or deemed insane, that checkmark is removed from your license...the check would be readministered every time you renew. This makes the most sense to me.
Click to expand...


I agree with you on one, it is simply not a viable solution. I like the second one and would have no problem with it. It would be better than what we have in place, but still has the obvious flaws. That said, it is probably as good a solution as possible (barring opening up the database... which has its own flaws)
 
Red Mule said:
This just is NOT true.
An old term GIGO (Garbage In - Garbage Out) applies. Many states and local jurisdictions simply do no cooperate with the national database. So, even when checks are made, it is far from complete or accurate. And when a gun seller sets up at a gun show every day or every weekend and claims these are "private sales" and it is not a business covered by background check laws, who do they think is being fooled? LOOPHOLE-LOOPHOLE-LOOPHOLE!
Click to expand...
[citation needed]
 
Is there anyone here who believes this guy is not insane?

Let's say he were to be found by a jury to be not guilty by reason of insanity, wouldn't' that mean he would have to be in an mental institution?
 
Superfreak said:
I agree with you on one, it is simply not a viable solution. I like the second one and would have no problem with it. It would be better than what we have in place, but still has the obvious flaws. That said, it is probably as good a solution as possible (barring opening up the database... which has its own flaws)
Click to expand...

California makes the first one work; however, I would also be ok with the second one (the DMV/photo id process).
 
Darla said:
Is there anyone here who believes this guy is not insane?

Let's say he were to be found by a jury to be not guilty by reason of insanity, wouldn't' that mean he would have to be in an mental institution?
Click to expand...

Was just listening to one of those ABC news updates on the radio and they said he would be put in a mental institution if he is deemed to be insane. The one question I would have is would he be put there for life or could he be released at some point?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top