I really think the only people we need to blame are the clerks who didn't let the BCA know that this guy was a felon.

If they had, he wouldn't have been able to buy guns in the first place.

The NRA needs to get a grip (no pun intended) and speak loudly and firmly that guns do not belong in the hands of just anyone. I have yet to hear them say anything of the kind.

Then you really aren't listening to their position.

Guess you missed all the headlines where the NRA is pushing for a more complete MENTAL PATIENT database...... of course, it will NEVER happen thanks to the ACLU.... wouldn't want to "label" anyone

I really doubt this guy had a real Tommy gun. Those are old 45 cal fully auto Thompson sub-machine guns like you see in the old Al Capone gangster movies. They cost $10K to $15K each and are only sold by class-III gun dealers. The buyer has to register each full auto weapon with the feds, and buy a special stamp for them. That is not likely with this weeny. Glad they got his crazy ass.

Steve, that's exactly why the NRA advocates for it.

I have heard the NRA advocate mental health databases, but in the same breath vehemently oppose background checks, traceability, and data collection by any means. How do you square those?

@scubasteve

He wouldn't have been able to buy weapons from licensed dealers, but that doesn't mean he couldn't have gone and bought all of those weapons from private sellers who aren't required to perform a background check. Even IF the system had worked as intended, there are still too many ways of bypassing it with the way things are, currently.

I have a friend who worked as a gunsmith who is all for a more comprehensive background check system because he acknowledges that mentally ill people getting their hands on guns and shooting up schools, theaters, etc. isn't something ANYONE wants. It also doesn't help the pro-gun ownership cause in any way, shape or form. He's completely perplexed how so many of the "pro gun ownership" crowd could be so short sighted in their all-or-nothing approach to the issue. Background checks on ALL sales doesn't negatively affect responsible gun owners, so why are self professed 'responsible gun owners' so dead set against it?

The NRA doesn't want a national data base because then we would see just how many people are being killed and mained each year in gun accidents. Don't forget the majority of their money comes from the gun industry, they could care less about the rest of us.

I have no problem with any one owneing a gun as long as they can prevent someone else from having accesss to that gun.. anyone can drive a car as long as you pass the drivers test and get a license .. that license does not permit you to drive a motorcycle or a semi or a D9 dozer or a tank ...for each class of vehicle you want to drive you must pass the test ..that should hold true with guns get a license to own and shoot a hunting rifle 30/30 or a pistol 357mag ..but if you want an AK47 with a 75 round canister you should have another license and with each class of firearm you get you should have a license for that firearm .. and you should have to pass a test that you are competent enough to keep that waepon out of everyone elses hands

Gun enthusiasts need to quit thinking the NRA is actually representing their views and interests. The NRA has evolved into nothing more than a political behemoth operating under the guise it wishes to protect the 2nd amendment rights while in reality being far more inclined to take the side of gun manufacturers and their political views.

independent jim, I wholeheartedly agree with you and adding on to what you state, maybe putting some onus of financial responsibility on gun owners similar to how states require vehicles to be insured would actually start making people protect their weapons.

Ok, this individual purchased his guns Illegally. What law would have stopped that? Secondly, he was supposed to be in the system as mentally defective, and a felon. Some one did not report him as they should have. Any back ground check or mental exam is useless if the information is not put into the system. The NRA does not have the responsibility here. The government employee who did not bother to do their job bears the responsibility. Lastly, should we also require a back ground check and a mental health exam, as well as a special permit with the appropriate tax for you to go to the church of your choice, or exercise your right to get on the inter-net and spout of what ever you like. After all, you could incite violence or threaten our favorite politician. Or perhaps offend some one. The system did not work in this case. More laws will just cause more failures in the system.

Again, all you gun enthusiest are demanding better mental health care. How are we supposed to do that? It sure sounds good coming out of your pie holes, but how are you suggesting we get better mental health care? Bigger government? Universal Health care(Single payer)? It makes a nice bumper sticker, but all you conservatives are against all the things that might get us better mental health care!!!Mental Health care is not free who is going to pay for all this mental healthcare?

Then you haven't been paying attention, the NRA are the ones who came up with the FBI NICS system, which Minnesota is exempt from using because they have their own State system.

The NRA pointed out in 1993 that the Brady Bill didn't include a requirement for a background check so they got it included in the Bill and it went into force in 1998.

Minnesota also has a background check for private transfers of firearms, one of Biden's recommendations.

The problem here is their crappy background check system, not the NRA.

Face it.

"Sometimes you kill like a nut."

"Sometimes you don't."

The issue of guns in America needs to be discussed in a fair and balanced manner. Since most of the authors on this thread are obsessed with the offensive use of guns in the commission of crimes, I invite them to consider the defensive use of guns in the prevention of crimes.

According to The National Self-Defense Survey, the defensive use of guns is about three to four times as common as the criminal use of guns.

The National Self-Defense Survey was the first survey specifically designed to estimate the frequency of defensive gun uses. It asked all respondents about both their own use and those of other household members, inquired about all gun types owned, and excluded usage against animals or associated with occupational duties. It also established whether persons claiming a defensive gun use had actually confronted an adversary, actually used their guns in some way (such as threatening their adversaries), and had done so in response to a crime being committed against them.

The National Self-Defense Survey indicated that there are approximately 2.5 MILLION incidents of defensive gun use per year in the United States. A similar national survey conducted by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the findings of the National Self-Defense Survey.

In short, most uses of guns for either criminal or defensive purposes are less dramatic or consequential than one might think. Only 3% of criminal gun assaults involve anyone actually being wounded and the same is true of defensive gun uses. More commonly, guns are merely pointed at another person, or perhaps only referred to ("I've got a gun") or displayed, and this is sufficient to accomplish the ends of the user, whether criminal or non-criminal. Most defensive uses of guns did not in fact involve shooting anyone.

Those findings seem to track with my personal experience when someone was pounding on my front door at 3:00am so forcefully that the pictures on my walls rattled. When I opened the inner door (I also have an outer storm door) to see if it was a neighbor in an emergency situation, a large, strange man began hollering incoherent insults at me. So, I displayed my M1 carbine with a 30-round banana cmagazine and chambered a round (I still had the safety on). That display alone was enough to make the stranger flee. When the cops arrived APPROXIMATELY 10 minutes later, they took my description of the stranger and proceeded to hunt for him in my neighborhood. I don't know if they ever found him. Nevertheless, my defensive use of a firearm (even though I only had to display it) will never be included in any statistical data base that casts firearms in a positive light.

By definition, all incidents involving successful defensive gun uses fall within the no-injury, no-property-loss category, and thus are largely invisible to the police. Consequently, police rarely hear about the bulk of successful defensive gun uses, instead hearing mostly about an unrepresentative minority of them containing a disproportionately large number of failures.

Moreover, according to crime incidents reported in the National Crime Victimization Survey, victims who use guns for self-protection are less likely to be injured or to lose property than otherwise similar victims who used other forms of self-protection or who did not resist at all.

So, if gun possession among law-abiding citizens tends to reduce violence, then reducing such gun possession is not a social good. I'm glad I own a gun...and one with a high-capacity magazine!

Finally, let’s not forget that NOT A SINGLE GUN was used on 9/11 or at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995; unspeakable evil will always find a way to express itself, with or without guns. Also, if the gun-grabbers think that the solution to reducing violence in America can be achieved by disarming and preventing citizens from defending themselves, maybe the same solution should be applied to reducing violence in the world at large by disbanding America’s military forces. How safe then do you think America would be in a world where only our enemies had guns...or better guns...or more guns?

Great post, I knew the numbers were high involving defense with a weapon [discharged or not]. but I didn't realize 2.5 million incidents per year.

Steven - then why do they staunchly oppose background check requirements for gun shows and private sales?

why would you support dealers have to do background checks, but not gun shows - if the entire reason you support the dealer background checks is to ensure that mentally ill people and dangerous felons dont have access to guns?

it just makes so little sense, that what I have to conclude is that they're trying to pretend to be concerned so that people like you refuse to look at whats behind the screen, and realize the Great Oz is really just a greedy bastard, who doesnt care much about the 2nd Amendment anymore than they do about making sure little children arent mowed down by crazies wielding Assault weapons.

believe me, if they really cared about the 2nd Amendment, they wouldnt have perverted it down to personal private ownership - and would have been rallying all this time for WELL REGULATED MILITIAS.

Where, by the way, are all those well regulated militia's that 2nd Amendment actually talked about?

what is funny here is that no one has commented on the fact he is a convicted felon. he is not allowed to own a gun period. second he should be locked up for the rest of his life for killing his own mother. forget the firearms he should still be in prison. third he owns a gun that is against the law to own without the proper permits. so how is the gun regulations and laws working in this case? they want to ban them from the legal owners but somehow someone like this not only gets a gun but one that i myself can't even own without a permit, not that i have any interest in owning an ak-47 a true assault rifle. yeah banning is the answer to this problem for sure, NOT!!!!!!!!!

What was this man doing alive when he already killed one person. Quit winning about guns and get rid of the people who do the killing. Why you self proclaimed wise people want to keep these proven nuts around and just get rid of guns. These shootings and other problems are more your fault. You know, life with no hard sure consequences. Guns don't kill people, people DO. You want people to be afraid to get caught with a gun. I want people to be afraid to go murder someone.

I am not currently, nor ever have been, a member of the NRA. The Founders worded the Second Amendment in such a way as to as to affirm the People's RIGHT to defend themselves from ANY and EVERY potential tyrannical, state run militia, as they had just done in the Revolutionary War. That is why it says "the right of the People" [to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.], and not the right of the militia...

That said, Ted NAILS it during this interview from PBS affiliate klru [3:18min].

"Liberty is given by nature even to mute animals." -- Gaius Cornelius Tacitus 56 - 117AD

I tell ya what... The gun banners get to keep the First Amendment if gun lovers get to keep the Second...

Sound fair? Oh, wait! That's what we already have. {sarcasm}

“An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.” -- Col. Jeff Cooper

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin

The NRA is not against background checks. They understand that a criminal should not be allowed to purchase a weapon and thats why a background check is needed. What should be included in that background check is not just wether a person has a criminal record, but to also make sure he has not been diagnosed as a mentally ill person as well. Too many people posting on here that does not understand the issue, just trolls.

Jessica said:"Where, by the way, are all those well regulated militia's that 2nd Amendment actually talked about?"

Much of it is lying in the weeds... jettisoned by those in this country who have an irrational fear of weapons.

According to the US Code the Militia is "all able bodied persons between the age of 18 and 45 who are not part of the Regular Militia" (The standing army). Well Regulated in the context of the 2nd Amendment means 'well trained, equipped or functioning'.

So to answer your original question: The are being treated the same way as the military was treated during the Vietnam war era - many of the people who should be participating are ignoring their duty.

But then what can we expect of the products of our wussified educational system which no longer teaches [real] American values...

Obviously, the answer is to get rid of the military (standing armies) and, by the same token, regulate the citizen's militia--by controlling when and where they can acquire weapons, how much ammo can be in their possession, etc.

With the advancement in technology why is our government so far behind the times? Utilities companies are the same. Wall Street is always light years ahead of everyone, no wonder they get away with their white collar crimes so easily and for so many years!!

The NRA was responsible for the courts not notifying the BCA that this person was a felon?

No but the NRA is against more paperwork of any kind. I don't know about anyone else but they gripe about paperwork and who has this information yet they hop into their car that is registered with the state and has MORE information than an FOID card requires. Their insurance company for that same car HAS MORE INFORMATION too. Do they gripe out loud and blame the POTUS about that? Uhh..no they don't. I see nothing wrong with requiring registration of any and all lethal weapons if a lousy car needs that much information.

All we need to do is start using Voter Registration Cards for gun purchases..... you cannot register to vote if you are a felon or mental........ we're not using for anything else..........

. . . you cannot register to vote if you are a felon or mental . . .

Actually, you can. Many states reinstate a felon's voting rights after a certain period or under some circumstances (varies from state to state, and I don't know all of the details), and a mental illness is not a disqualifier.

Hey clueless, enough with the baseball bats, hammers, and knives talking point. It has been debunked, and is just plain stupid, anyway.

you cannot register to vote if you are a felon or mental.......

But you can if you're an illegal alien.

Maybe we should register baseball bats, hammers and knives...give me a break.

Because those are the same as guns, right? No difference? Yeah. Why does anyone bother to get a gun at all?

a serious people problem? do you mean.. like people like Palin putting bulls eyes on people like Giffords

Instead of buying a gun, I just bought a bag of hammers to hunt with. They work just as well as the gun, plus I saved a bunch of money!

My first question is "why was he released?" It sounds like he served 7 years for murder. I believe if you taje a life, murder, then yours should be demanded of you, execution. This is protecting society from this type of individual. Yes we need more help for the mentally ill. However, murder should mandate a death sentence, mentally ill or not, juvenile or not. If we find a rabid dog, one who is dabgerous due to illness qw put the dog down to protect society. I am strongly committed to the sabctity of life, however, a muderer forfeits his right to life by his actions. Our efforts in mental helth need to improve efforts in ealry intervention, after a murder is committed is too late for mental health treatments. Oyr justice system needs to get real and eliminate innocence due to temporary insanity and criminal insanity. IF YOU MURDWE SOMEBODY YOU DIE!

Instead of buying a hammer, I just got a flame thrower. Burns up the entire forest and cooks the deer for you at the same time.

My God, I can't believe that so many people have no clue about what the NRA has done in the past, it's called "Google".

The NRA were the ones who lobbied for the federal background check system. It went into force in 1998.

Back in the 90's the NRA did do a lot of good things but sometime in the 2000's it changed begun protecting gun company's more than people. Now it fights all legislature good or bad for gun safety.

"The BCA relies on entities in the criminal justice system to provide data on an individual which then populates the individual's criminal history," BCA officials said in a statement, according to KARE-TV. "There were no data submitted to the BCA about this individual. Without it there can be no record."

With all those who are screaming for more gun control, and better backgroundchecks... the above statement pretty much outlines one of the major problems we face... PEOPLE NOT DOING THERE JOB!!

Some scream for MORE background checks, some feel the need to BAN this gun or that gun... however. If the people in charge would just uphold the laws and requirements we already have in place, this clown would never have been able to purchase any of the weapons he had in his arsenal...

Why pass more laws? We don’t enforce the ones we already have. And On a side note; People who are predisposed to commit murder will do it using whatever weapon they have access top. It doesn’t matter if it’s a butter knife, a baseball bat, a screw driver, a butcher knife, an assault rifle, a pistol; a can of gasoline and a rag... the weapon makes no difference to the murder. Only the act of killing.

Charles Whitman killed 19 people from the clock tower at UT Texas in Austin in 1966; hedidn’t have an assault rifle or a high capacity magazine. He had an M-1 Carbine (civilian issue) a bolt action deer rifle, a sawed off shot gun and a pistol...think about it people. It’s not the guns; it’s the people who have the guns. Guns don’t kill people, People kill people.

Mental health is the only conceivable answer to this problem. Lets face it, people will find ways to get guns. Bombs are illegal but people still build them. If we look at the way Drunk Driving has been reduced it would help. Add up all the DUI Community Service messages youve seen in the last 10 years. It was and is basic brainwashing. Use the media. Have ways of dealing with people who are unbalanced. We have wasted billions fighting an imaginary bogey man in the middle east. But ask the government to do something for its own people is like pulling teeth. Put a trillion dollars into mental health. Now look at America. Can you see the difference?

GDI... so let me get this straight... you're saying people without guns can't kill people right? Because I'm quite sure Charles Whitman wouldn't have done much damage had he been throwing butcher knives and hammers

PRober.
No thats not what im saying, and Charles Whitman could certainly have killed people throwing butcher knives and hammers off the bell tower at UT... what I am saying is that all these people who are screaming for a ban on assult rifles because they have a 20 shot magazine or whatever are missing the point.

The monster that killed the 20 childeren at Sandy Hook, could have just as easily done it with 2 or three pistols with 7 shot clips in them.. like Charles Whiman. True it may have taken him a few seconds more to do it with multiple weapons than it did with an assult rifle, but the outcome would have been nearly the same.

Again,What I said was People who are predisposed to commit murder will do so no matter what weapon they have at their disposal..

"The BCA relies on entities in the criminal justice system to provide data on an individual which then populates the individual's criminal history"

Leave it to liberals to turn this into an article about a man buying guns.... instead of the systemic failures of lazy/incompetant/outdated police departments.

The liberal mantra: Why address a real issue or attempt to fix anything when you can blame something you don't personally like instead?

As a moderate, I must profess that I don't see the direct "liberal" causality and erroneousness that this tangent derived from. The content associated with gun purchase is quite relevant, when considering that there must be some humane way to address the potential dangers posed by the mentally ill. Investing more funding into the police department is not necessarily the best solution; after all, responsive measures must always be less efficient than offensive ones that directly address the problem.

Please keep the discussion civil and please do not stereotype 50% or so of the U.S. population in your black-and-white political interpretations.

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice President of the NRA, dodged the Vietnam draft by having his family doctor write a letter stating he has a "nervous disorder."

Is a nervous disorder considered mental illness?

Does this mean that Mr. LaPierre cannot legally buy or own a gun?

I hope enough of you anti-gun people read this story. What do you see here? A crazed mentally ill person who killed his mother,declared to be a child,and was not locked away somewhere. I hope you also see that he had a good selection of weapons,when he decided to go off again. How or where did he get them? It wasn't through the gun laws that are already in place. How does our government expect to check everyone mentally.YOU SIMPLY CANNOT STOP IT. If you try to control good honest people from wanting to protect themselves,then more gun honest people are going to die. Look at the sickhead comment before me. Why don't you get off your computer and go take the guns away from the wrong people that have them? I hope since your so dumb you don't have one.

I would think someone such as LaPierre, who loves guns and assault rifles and champions the rights of those who wish to protect themselves from foreign invaders, would be itching for the chance to serve his country and use its significant militia weaponry to ward off the enemy.

One more thing. After reading some more comments,i see alot of the problem we have. You people don't seem to understand nothing. It don't matter what info or anything else you put anyplace,it's not going to do any good. These people in case you can't read do not, i repeat do not get their guns the legal way. They had the sicko locked up and let him out. Put the fault where it belongs.

bill: "You people don't seem to understand nothing. It don't matter what info or anything else you put anyplace.."

bill, I think you've brought the problem into sharp focus.

These people in case you can't read do not, i repeat do not get their guns the legal way.

Really I have not read a lot in the media about just how these people get these weapons they use. This is a serious question and one you would think we would need to ask and answer if we, as a nation, were serious about ending gun violence inthis country.

I imagine it is easy for any crackpot to get their hands on any kind of gun in this country.

In Virginia, you can be criminally insane, and still walk into any gun show and buy an assault weapon and ammo with no background check at all. You might have to flash a driver's license or some sort of ID though. All a gun dealer has to do is pose as a private seller and he can sell you whatever you want.

Why do all the mass shootings take place in states and cities run by democrats?

Because They either are democrats or grew up in a progressive Dem household....

The five worst mass killings, where a firearm was used, have a common thread. Hint #1: They didn't belong to the NRA. They don't fit the stereotype of the "red-neck" gun owner.

Check it out …

Ft Hood: Registered Democrat/Muslim.
Columbine: Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats and progressive liberals.
Virginia Tech: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff; Registered Democrat.
Colorado Theater: Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign; Occupy Wall Street participant; progressive liberal.
Connecticut School Shooter: Registered Democrat; hated Christians.

Common thread is that all of these shooters were progressive liberal Democrats.

Also, of the worst killings in the last several decades, only one was a female, all the rest were boys, barely men, and none of them had a strong male father or role model in the household. Their role models were rappers, action movies, comics and violent video games.
Our problem isn't weapons, it's boys without boundaries. Who live in 'progressive' households.

Read more: The 5 Worst Mass Murders in the USA (with a Firearm) Came from Democrats

Gub dealers to NOT pose as private sellers, at gun shows. Most of them willingly fullfil their reseponsibilities to always perform this check. Private sales at a gun show are just like private sales in the parking lot, over the back yard fence, or in your home. We have a PRIVATE SALE loophole, not a gun show loop hole. Many people do support a background checks for all gun sales, but insane people and felons but be reported to the BCA, for back ground checks to be effective.

However, gang bangers aren't going to purchase from a gun dealer or anyone doing a background check. They aren't going to register their guns.

Ster, just not true. Prove that James Holmes was a "Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign; Occupy Wall Street participant; progressive liberal". You can't use Newsmax either, they got their story wrong (I know, par for their course).

Ster2, agreed, want to reduce gun violence in America....ban the root cause......Excessive Liberalism....and the unrealistic sense of self entitlement that fosters these malcontents to harbor and nurse the chips on their shoulders.

Stop the BS about all democrats being anti gun liberals. We're not. I was raised around guns, just happen to own several, 2 of them are loaded. I have many friends and acquaintances who own guns, registered democrats, and not one of them has ever shot anybody in this country. So many of you believe in your own bs so deeply you remind me of Randy on South Park, the prius episode, where he became so smug he loved the smell of his own farts. Since the 60s mental health facilitys have been shut down and replaced with nothing. That officer in Vegas that killed his wife and children, bet he was a republican, doesnt mean all republican police officers will kill their families. Do yourselves a favor and stop watching fox news, that addict idiot limbaugh, screw norquist, begin to think for yourselves. I am at the same time not a fan of tv's msnbc. Screw it I would be better served talking to an ink blot.

Thank you, jackieca,

Wish you would post that in every thread about guns. Most of these gun slingers need to hear it.

Bob,
I Never mentioned James Holmes,But the Colorado shooter seems to have been what your talking about,but you can read into it what you want,the truth hurts,and like most people of your limited News resources,you don't want to believe anyone who may have other news other than the Progressive agenda mainstream.There are many sources putting these Facts out,If you chose not to believe,then that's your business.

He is a Minnesota resident purchasing from a dealer in Minnesota, a national data base wouldn't have made a difference. If the felony information didn't make it to the State level it sure wouldn't have made it to the Federal level. They admitted it was the fault of the court not getting the information updated. It all falls back on the old saying "Garbage in garbage out". Databases are only as good as the information entered. Can you imagine the shocked look on his face when he bought his first gun after being released? That should have been a clue to the clerk who sold him the first gun. The NRA suggested that the government put a booth up at gun shows for private sales but they refused to even consider it. Why is that? Most of the private gun owners where I live won't sell a gun without going to a dealer and having a background check done on the purchaser.

Logic4U

you cannot register to vote if you are a felon or mental.......

But you can if you're an illegal alien.

Where the heck did you get THAT idea? Illegal aliens are NOT allowed to vote. Only citizens are allowed to vote.

I agree that he should have been released.
How are guns the problem? Several people, myself included, own assault weapons and never commit a crime. So why ban guns for law abiding citizen criminals could still guns illegally. So what do you accomplish by banning assault weapons?

As for the second part of your commit most of us own guns to defend our homes. Not to fight the government.

Julieann,

You're correct. The primary purpose of guns is killing and that of motor vehicles is transportation.

HOWEVER, they both kill. Guns are a little more "honest" of a product. They're made to kill and they enable a person to do that with great efficiency. The fact that motor vehicles also kill with even greater efficiency if you are simply comparing numbers, is shrouded in the way we regard automobiles: They're handy, they're fun, they enhance status, they're sexy, they're more broadly familiar than are firearms...AND IN THE HANDS OF THE RECKLESS OR DISABLED THEY ALSO KILL.

Significantly, keeping and bearing of arms is an existing right guaranteed by our Constitution. Owning and operating motor vehicles is not.

And finally, it would be nice if you didn't attempt to curtail my or anyone else's First Amendment right to express an opinion because you vehemently disagree with it.

So I guess Jefferson, Monroe, Payne, Hamilton, Henry, et al were paranoid schizophrenics?

You're funny.

Guns are made for competition shooting, recreation, hunting, and personal protection.

Cars are made for transport.

When used by irresponsible individuals, either can kill.

He should never have been released is what it should have said own my previous commit.

Actually firearms are designed and manufactured for one purpose and that is to propel a/some projectile(s). The target and the and the result are determined by the user.

If you keeep guns from crazy people then only crazy people willl have guns, I think..... because guns don't killl crazy people cold dead fingers do.... I think.

Joshua: Really? Really? You believe what you wrote? Then stop "projecting" your gun in the direction of something you want to kill or maim.

Again, all you gun enthusiest are demanding better mental health care. How are we supposed to do that? It sure sounds good coming out of your pie holes, but how are you suggesting we get better mental health care? Bigger government? Universal Health care(Single payer)? It makes a nice bumper sticker, but all you conservatives are against all the things that might get us better mental health care!!!

Most of you do not get it, you cannot compare a car to a gun! They are both irrelevent!!

If you need a military style rifle to protect your home then hire the US National Guard to do it for you. This is not Israel, nor do we want the US to become another Middle Eastern country!! Referencing the forefathers is not helping your claim because they did not see high powered rifles into the future. The guns they had during the Revolutionary War and Civil War were 12 to 15 feet long and you practically had to be ontop of your target to shoot it. That is not the case today.

" The guns they had during the Revolutionary War and Civil War were 12 to 15 feet long and you practically had to be ontop of your target to shoot it. "

Hahaha!! 12 to 15 feet long!!? Must of took 2 people to load the thing!! How was the war even fought??

But who had those guns during the war? Wouldn't been military men would it? Thus it be classified as a Military Style Rifle..no?

1774 - Banned from import of firearms and gun powder
1775 - British attempt confiscation of arms and powder
1776 - REVOLUTION

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1967702

The forefathers were spot on when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. Saying the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to today's firearms is just like saying the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to Facebook.

Thousands of people are killed by cars every year.

Thousands of people are killed by guns every year.

Cars are well regulated and are getting safer. Guns need to be well regulated in order to make them safer.

Even Justice Scalia agrees that guns can be banned.

Though Justice Antonin Scalia tried in the majority opinion to use the Second Amendment to defend gun rights, the many sources that he cited are clear that the purpose of the amendment was to protect state militias. One source, for example, declares, that the purpose of the Second Amendment is "to secure a well-armed militia... ." Another source Scalia cited indicates that the amendment covers only arms that "have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

Therefore, Scalia acknowledges that the Second Amendment -- even in his pro-gun interpretation -- only protects arms that would be used in a militia, not the weapons of a formal army. He makes clear that "M-16 rifles and the like" have no Second Amendment protection and may be banned.

There is thus no constitutional protection whatsoever for the semiautomatic rifle that killed the kids in Newtown. Even Scalia is explicit on that point.

Jeffrey Sachs: Overcoming Delusions About the Second Amendment

Julieann:

The guns they had during the Revolutionary War and Civil War were 12 to 15 feet long...

Put down the pipe and step away from the bong... The majority of the Founder where known "Futurists", and some were inventors. To even think they could not conceive of any progress in any venue is preposterous. So are you insinuating that we get rid of the First Amendment because they couldn't conceive of the PC? Or the Fourth because of the drones?

The Founders worded the Second Amendment in such a way as to as to affirm the People's RIGHT to defend themselves from ANY and EVERY potential tyrannical, state run militia, as they had just done in the Revolutionary War. That is why it says "the right of the People" [to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.], and not the right of the militia...

“An armed person is a Citizen and unarmed person is a Subject.” -- Unknown

"Throughout history, there have only been two groups of people that have never been allowed guns: Slaves and Conquered Nations. And which one are they trying to make us in America?" -- Sheriff Richard Mack

I tell ya what... Gun banners get to keep the First Amendment if gun lovers get to keep the Second...

Sound fair? Oh, wait! That's what we already have. {sarcasm}

I love listening to people blame the conservatives for the problems with the mentally ill people not being taken care of. It is the bleeding heart liberals that fought to remove these people from the institutions. Unless they are known to be a danger to themselves or others, they cannot be forced to get treatment. Many feel like they are better while on their medication so they decide that they don't need it anymore and they cannot be forced to continue to take it. Liberals seem to think that they know best about everything and yet they screwed up big time on this issue and it is biting them in the butt so they have to shift the blame to the conservatives.

That is besides the fact that not every person who murders is mentally ill. We as humans are animals and we are probably the most vicious animals in the world. Greed, jealousy and quest for power among other things cause people to do things that normal society considers heinous. Not every person who commits such a heinous crime is mentally ill. We have the ability to think and reason and yet we do the most horrendous things and we have throughout history. We may pretend to be more civilized than common animals but we are not and we never will be.

Julieann - "HINT: guns made for killing"

Thanks for saving everyone time and highlighting your complete and total lack of knowledge.

P.S.

Could you please inform the international Olympics committee to stop misusing guns for things like target shooting? I'm sure they would value your expertise on the matter.

A "tommy gun" no less. We can't keep them off the streets, we can't keep them out of the hands of mental cases. A nut case, let alone your average ramboette, with an arsenal. Great. Killing is the latest national pastime.

donna: "The liberals" were blamed for whining about the treatment of the Jews in 1930's/1940's Germany. As a matter of fact, they were lined up along with the Jews and executed for their sentiments.

In spite of your perspective, 'liberal' is not defined as 'anyone that doesn't agree with your opinion." I'll look it up for you:

"favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual..."

THOSE WHO REFUSE TO LEARN FROM HISTORY ARE CONDEMNED TO REPEAT IT!

December 29, 2012 marks the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux

Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South

Dakota. These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal

agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their

firearms "for their own safety and protection". The slaughter began AFTER

the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. When the

final round had flown, of the 297 dead or dying, two thirds (200) were women

and children. Around 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed, over half cut down by

friendly fire from the Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous comrades-in-arms.

Twenty members of the 7th Cavalry were deemed "National Heros" and awarded

the Medal of Honor for their acts of cowardice.

We do not hear of Wounded Knee today. It is not mentioned in our history

classes or books. What little does exist about Wounded Knee is normally the

sanitized "Official Government Explanation" or the historically and

factually inaccurate depictions of the events leading up to the massacre on

the movie screen.

Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts

in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people.

Before you jump on the emotionally charged bandwagon for gun-control, take a

moment to reflect on the real purpose of the Second Amendment- The right of

the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and

property in the face of invading armies or an oppressive government. The

argument that the Second Amendment only applies to hunting and target

shooting is asinine. When the United States Constitution was drafted

"hunting" was an everyday chore carried out by men and women to put meat on

the table each night, and "target shooting" was an unheard of concept,

musket balls were a precious commodity in the wilds of early America , and

were certainly not wasted "target shooting". The Second Amendment was

written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe , and

refers to the right of American citizens to be armed for defense purposes

should such tyranny rise in the United States .

As time goes on the average citizen in the United States continues to lose

personal freedom or "liberty". Far too many times unjust bills are passed

and signed into law under the guise of "for your safety" or "for

protection". The Patriot Act signed into law by G.W. Bush, then expanded and

continued by Barack Obama is just one of many examples of American citizens

being stripped of their rights and privacy for "safety". Now, the Right to

Keep and Bear Arms is on the table, and will, most likely be taken away for

"our safety".

Before any American citizen blindly accepts whatever new firearms

legislation that is about to be doled out, they should stop and think about

something for just one minute-

Evil does exist in our world. It always has and always will. Throughout

history evil people have committed evil acts. In the Bible one of the first

stories is that of Cain killing Abel. We can not legislate "evil" into

extinction. Good people will abide by the law, defective people will always find a way around it.

And another thought Evil exists all around us, but looking back at the

historical record of the past 200 years across the globe, where is "evil"

and "malevolence" most often found? In the hands of those with the power-

governments. Those greatest human tragedies on record and the largest loss of

innocent human life can be attributed to governments. Who do governments

target? "Scapegoats" and "enemies" within their own borders. but only after

they have been disarmed to the point where they are no longer a threat. Ask

any Native American, and they will tell you it was inferior technology and

lack of arms that contributed to their demise. Ask any Armenian why it was

so easy for the Turks to exterminate millions of them, and they will answer

"We were disarmed before it happened". Ask any Jew what Hitler's first step

prior to the mass murders of the Holocaust was- confiscation of firearms

from the people.

Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and

why we shouldn't be in such a hurry to surrender our Right to Bear Arms.

Without the Second Amendment we have no right to defend ourselves and our

Families

Governments have killed over 170 Million of their own people just in the 20th century alone. Don't believe it?

Watch this movie. http://www.paulstramer.net/2013/01/innocents-betrayed-history-of-gun.html

They always start by making some so called "law" putting restrictions on, and then registering and confiscating firearms.

In America there is NO valid gun control law. Those so called laws are null and void from their inception.

See the supreme court rulings in this article. http://www.paulstramer.net/2012/11/what-is-really-law-and-what-is-not-law.html

@getmeoutalive

Nice article ... and nicely plagiarized too.

get me out alive?Now they are all drunks or run casinos ,their futures so bright they gotta wear shades....to hide their blood shot eyes......remarkable progress!.

pjam09

Julieann - "HINT: guns made for killing"

Thanks for saving everyone time and highlighting your complete and total lack of knowledge.

P.S.

Could you please inform the international Olympics committee to stop misusing guns for things like target shooting? I'm sure they would value your expertise on the matter.

Are you kidding me? Firearms were invented for one purpose, to kill. As if the need to put holes in paper targets from a distance would have led to the invention of firearms. Target shooting was invented for one reason, to practice killing things with firearms so when it came time to do it for real the shooter would have some level of skill. The fact that they have turned firearms practice into an Olympic sport does not change reality.

I am a person that thinks that there are good point to be made by people on both sides of the gun issue. Alternatively I also believe there is a lot of B.S. coming from both sides as well.

Well this guy didn't follow the restrictions currently in place. If he had, he wouldn't have purchased any guns.

What makes you think adding another law making it illegal for him to buy guns would help?

Scubasteve58001

That is the exact thing I tell people when they ask for my opinion.

Steven1 wrote:

My God, I can't believe that so many people have no clue about what the NRA has done in the past, it's called "Google". The NRA were the ones who lobbied for the federal background check system. It went into force in 1998.

No, the NRA was against it.

On November 30, 1998, the day that NICS went into operation, the NRA filed a suit against the Justice Department for retaining NICS records for up to six months (NRA v. Reno).� The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which operates NICS, had announced it intended to keep the records for up to six months in order to make sure the system was working properly.

Ah hem. The NRA was and is against it.

Had I known about him much earlier, I would have suggested that he visit NRA HQ.

Granpa - "See gunz don't need no more restrictions"

No crap, how would restricting everyone elses access to guns have helped?

Don't you think restricting a "mentally ill and dangerous person", who was also a known murderer, would make a little more sense than restricting inanimate objects?... oh right, that would require understanding the concept of personal responsibility, something liberals cannot wrap their small brains around.

No, please go back and read it again. The NRA was against the Justice Department keeping records of who purchased guns, not the NICS background check itself. The NRA was against keeping the records of who purchased what gun as that is registration. Something totally seperate from the background check.

scuba: I think the restrictions being contemplated aren't premised on how compliant people like this guy might be. They are intended to keep guns out of the hands of dimbulbs with or without their cooperation

But, but we can ALWAYS trust the government to take care of us, NO?

He purchased the guns "legally" due to a clerical error. The BCA was never notified that he was a felon or that he had been in a mental institution.

Kevin,

He was able to buy them from a store. The reason is because his information was never entered into the database saying he is not allowed to buy them. They ran a background check on him, and it came back clean. So a person would assume it is ok for him to have a permit / purchase firearms.

The bigger problem was 3 issues:

1. The information was never entered into the database (in 1998 deemed dangerous so a 15 year clerical error)

2. Neighbors had already been calling about him shooting guns in his backyard.

3. Oberender lived in treatment centers until he was 21, according to a 2003 article by the Associated Press.

As far back as 1998 and as recently as 2003, he was in contact with psychiatrists and doctors. At some point, this information should have been provided. You would think in all this time, someone would have noticed an error.

Kevin, did you read the article? "The convicted killer’s name did not show up in a background check through the state’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension database..." Meaning, someone did not do their job and put this guy's info into the BCA database. Also, "...Oberender obtained a permit in May that allowed him to buy guns through Minnesota dealers."

Tom-1921301-1921301

No you caught me, I didn't read throught the whole article. I went sraight down to the good part where the gun grabbing goobers are calling to ban all firearms. Looks like Minnisota's way of doing business needs an overhaul. I can't believe this guy had the balls to even fill out the paperwork to ask permission to own a gun.

In Minnesota, you need a permit to buy a handgun or military-style semi-autos. Regardless of who you buy it from.

I understand, Kevin. Sometimes, the moronic rantings commenting on the article can be more entertaining than the article itself. Cheers!

As far as MN, I don't know that it needs an overhaul, but at least a better system of double checking for entries.

If every state had a system similar to Minnesota's we would all be safer. Too many states have almost no regulations at all.

Bloomberg Unveils Videos of Arizona Gun Show Sting - WNYC

The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features

kevin: "No you caught me, I didn't read throught the whole article. I went sraight down to the good part where the gun grabbing goobers are calling to ban all firearms."

No one will ever again question your research, your honesty or your objectivity -or you spelling. I think this is described occasionally as a 'knee-jerk' mentality.

ink: Interesting. Here in Arizona 'occasional sellers' at gun shows aren't required to conduct background checks. That's comforting. I wonder how 'occasional seller' is defined? If I ever need a 'tommy gun', or a BAR, I'll just stroll around the Wild West Show until I find an 'occasional seller'. Great stuff.

The NRA does not want that. Go ask them!!!

THE NRA pushed for better background checks. Blame the ACLU for not wanting people to be "labeled" or blame the bleeding hearts who wanted the guy "rehabilitated" and released back into the population.

IF we enforced the laws we already have and stopped bowing to special interests we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Well like Biden says we just do not have time to comply with all the laws especially the paper work part. That appears true here.

Yes, but a more crucial question might be

should Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, be allowed to buy or own a gun since he dodged the Vietnam draft in 1969 by having his family doctor write a letter stating he has a "nervous disorder?"

Isn't a nervous disorder considered a mental illness?

A nervous disorder is not mental illness. I have a familial tremor. It's a nervous disorder. I am not mentally ill.

According to WebMD, there are many kinds of nervous (anxiety) disorders that are considered severe mental illness.

That's correct. And there are many nervous disorders that are not mental illnes. Which nervous disorder(s) does Wayne LaPierre have?

That's what we would like to find out.

And we would like the see the LONG medical form, too, please,

One would hope!!

I read a news article where a women was jailed for not paying $85 in fines from two decades ago. This dude will get out with a slap on the wrist. Go figure!!

HE will be out in a year or two. Bleeding hearts will contradict themselves after they feel that he has been "fixed"

Sorry, NBC is a for-profit TV network owned by Comcast and General Electric. Hardly liberal type organizations. But these companies do both share a deep, abiding love of steady income to keep the lights on. So, with FOX having clearly sewed-up the conservative viewer crowd, it's natural the NBC would target other audience demographics. Go where the fish are. It's called marketing; free market stuff. When it doesn't happen to follow your way of thinking, capitalism can be a real b*tch, eh?

Don't worry, Doug: Al Gore just sold his network to a "real" news agency that actually values journalism!

So reporting a kook with a gun arsenal is "left-wing propaganda?" No. You Teabaggers live in a make-believe world of mental retardation and you hate to hear about reality.

Otto please refrain from insulting the mentally challenged folks! Because they have no use for firearms.

Has anyone reported Wayne LaPierre, executive Vice President of the NRA, for the "nervous disorder" he claimed he had that disqualified him from the Vietnam draft in 1969? I assume this is a form of mental illness.

silverton-2953905,

Once again, a nervous disorder is not necessarily accompanied by mental illness. I could be suffering from something like peripheral neuropathy where the nerves in the toes, fingers, nose, etc. become less sensitive and still be quite free of any mental disorder.

Until you know exactly what nervous disorder La Pierre is suffering from (assuming you are correct here) you can't determine if he is mentally impaired DUE TO a nervous disorder.

You seem to be picking on Wayne. Why is that?

hmdicowii,

Sounds like you are confusing a nerve disorder with a nervous disorder.

A nervous disorder is an anxiety disorder. According to WebMD, this is considered mental illness.

I think it is highly relevent to the discussion of mental illness and gun control, if the executive vp of the NRA is suffering from mental illness and encouraging others to become paranoid and arm themselves with a stockpile of assault weapons.

Silverton-2953905,

Going to WebMD as you did, makes me wonder what you read there. Searching for nervous disorder yielded 731 nervous disorders. Some I recognized:

Multiple Sclerosis - not mental illness.

Tay Sachs Disease - not mental illness.

Epilepsy - not mental illness.

Do you know the specific nervous disroder from which you claim LaPierre suffers? That would help in sorting out this "relevant" issue.

No, we don't know the specific nervous disorder that Mr. LaPierre has, but we need to find out not only if he is legally able to buy or own a gun, but also if anyone should actually be listening to what he is suggesting about no gun control laws, everyone having the right to own assault weapons of any kind, etc.

And we would like to see the LONG medical form, too, please.

The problem is the NRA keeps taking everyone to court to block the laws..

“For years, the NRA has told us to ‘enforce the [gun] laws on the books,’” said Virginia Center for Public Safety Board Member Lori Haas. “But when they’re done eradicating Virginia’s public safety regime, there won’t be any laws left to enforce.”

Last time I checked, "Libs" were for increasing mental health care, and actually confirming someone to run the ATF, and enforce gun laws, but the NRA-Right was fighting against those, tooth and nail.

"The Libs"....of course. The fall-back position for those unable to master the use of a dictionary - digital or literal - or any other even marginally objective source.

Why not blame it on the 'tooth fairy', max - it would be just as credible.

"The Libs". The use of that term gets more more common and pathetic by the day. Please.......come up with something a bit more creative, and not one in direct opposition to the actual definition. Huh?

He was able to get a Kinda WAIVER....so he could purchace weapons from local dealers..The STATE ISSUED the Waiver....even with his background...They just did not look...

Who knew there were "waivers" for crazy.

Unless the courts fail to notify the agency responsible for doing those background checks.

No system is perfect and obviously this one is not working very well and needs to be improved / strengthened, but it's still better than nothing.

Minnesota already requires background checks on private transfers. But the check was hopeless.

He did NOT have a Tommy Gun or a machine gun!!! I saw the picture. It was a semi auto 1927 REPLICA with a 16" Brady Bill barrel. This is blown out of proportion like the AR-assault rifle stories.

Greg, you are right on the money. The problem is not everyone who owns guns is a danger, just criminals and crazies. Virtually all of them have prior episodes that would logically have disqualified them from gun ownership...but...even if we establish good guidelines, what jurisdiction has the manpower to go get the guns? Plus, if someone prescribes psychiatric drugs, aren't they already a suspicious entity?

I believe loosening the restrictions on mentally healthy, non-criminal gun owners would eventually result in a more controlled danger from the lunatics. There are many countries where gun ownership per 1000 people exceeds our own, and yet they have safer streets. Switzerland comes to mind, and even Israel is reasonably safe, and considering where they live that's amazing.

Gun shows are a big part of the problem. Anyone with money can go to a gun show and go home with a gun. Sure, they are suppose to background checks, in some cases, but there is no oversight. They sell them out of the back of cars. You can't set up a tent in a park as sell liquor with no ID's required. You can't sell a car without registering it, why the bleep can you buy and sell guns with no registrations, it's insane. If you are a gun enthusiast, why don't you want to clean up your own backyard and get the criminal element to stop amassing weaponry. Why are American's so paranoid? Kruschev was right, this country does not need to be attacked, it will go down from the inside.

Nobody cares if law abiding citizens owns guns. Get over yourselves. It's a tired argument.

You have to have a license to sell alcohol and PAY THE TAX. You have to register your car and PAY THE TAX. All registration on cars, boats and what ever else is nothing but a tax on the owner of the property. They are considered real property. Guns are still considered personal property, like your cloths or cell phone. no tax on them after your state sales tax. Unless you can get the laws changed any tax on personal property is illegal.

The laws that aren't being followed. That is the problem.

There was a breakdown in the system and the courts didn't notify the BCA (the agency responsible for background checks) that this guy was a felon.

Adding more laws won't solve anything if they aren't being followed.

There is no gun-related problem that cannot be solved with more guns.

Invisible...you're so irrelevant! Get a life...and perhaps if you spent more time trying to buy and education, or a new brain, you'd wouldn't be one of the people that should NEVER own a gun.

shut it step-sue ya skank !

A gun is far more than an inanimate object. It is a tool designed for only one thing: to kill.

I help my son with his kits; he like to build replicas of old black powder pistols. But I make it clear that these are dangerous and need to be locked up when not in use. He has a little sister in the house, and we don't need any stupid accidents due to not appreciating that guns are dangerous by their nature.

Guns don't kill people. They just make it a lot easier.

Steve, kudos for you for making sure those pistols are locked up when you aren't around. There have been so many young kids here in OK killed because someone had their pistol tucked under their pillow, or under the mattress just in case it was needed, and of course they were loaded. Just recently a 3-yr-old boy was killed because he got ahold of his father's gun. If we have that, how many gunowners are not even locking up the big stuff thus enabling burglars to steal the arsenal.

sheelf -- agreed.

I am a rare breed- a liberal who believes in the 2nd Amendment. But when the founders of the country wrote (and amended) the Constitution, assault and automatic weapons didn't exist. So to suggest (as someone above has) that any kind of gun control laws are unconstitutional is a bunch of hooey. Anyone who believes that has no understanding of the Constitution and it's history. The Founders purposely worded it in very general terms and created a process whereby it could be changed as conditions in the country changed. Very wise, those men were. Not only can it can be changed by amendment, but the text of the Constitution AND it's Amendments can also be REINTERPRETED by the Supreme Court. And it has been, on many occasions. So for those flailing their arms and wailing about their absolute right to bear arms, read up on your Constitutional history and find a new argument.

@Smeefy you lie . we know you can't read . so STFU ! and get back under your rock

Tim,

Now you're talking...glad you see the light.

Is yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre exercising your 1st amendment rights?

how do you buy a tommie gun ?

as for the car thing why is there a corvett when a volt will do or a cadie or a big block truck or a supped up vintage car or a bigger house than next door because we can it is america for the more paper work that would come from the thought that the goverment will some day come to get our guns and why give them a head start to who has what !

bigblock:

Because some of us 'need' that stuff, and some of us are comfortable with who we are without it. Makes me wonder what causes these consuming self-esteem problems.

You're right, of course. Any forthcoming legislation will, no matter what it pretends to address, is in fact no more than an ultra-secret FBI conspiracy to catalog every .410 shotgun and caviar spoon in the solar system. No................really!

The guy at the grocery store collecting the shopping carts? Don't trust him for a second. Trust me on this, I know what he's up to.........

You have a right to what ever property you want and can afford. You have the right to any fire arm you want and can afford. Either of those rights end when you use your property to cause harm to some one else. When you set the precedent that the government can dictate what you can own or can't own, we all end up as serfs to the ruling elite.

old dog..the government already does dictate what you can and cannot own, what you can or cannot buy. The government also tells you who you may not buy from and who you may buy from, what you can and cannot eat, drink, wear and yes even drive on the street. You may not own an atom bomb or a cuban cigar

How so?

If we have software that can do facial recognition from a camera mounted above a street in London, we can certainly do a better job of screening people wanting to buy a gun. Catching simple name switches it pretty simple. We need effective, nation-wide screening for all gun purchases. Today it is harder to buy cigarettes than it is to buy a gun in too many states.

Steve,

You bring up an interesting point...that I think leads to the National ID Card debate. Should we have a non-forgeable national ID card with biometric data embedded? Some think that it would help with a number of issues including illegal immigrants, health care fraud, national driver's license, voter ID, Medicare, Social Security...to name a few.

Yes. We need a national id card and national gun control laws. Then things like the Virginia Tech massacre would not have happened. 32 dead. Look at the mess in Arizona too.

The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features

Bloomberg Unveils Videos of Arizona Gun Show Sting - WNYC

Look like the monster is going to prison (finally) and get it up the chute 5 times a day. Hope the system works, because this is the thing that causes mass shooting, not the implements.

So, saaaaay if he had a Howitzer, it still wouldn't be the Howitzer's fault at the amount of damage that was done, right? 500-lb. bomb? Just a paperweight, really. Just keep it out of the "wrong" hands and there's no reason we can't have lots of them in all the houses on Main St.

NO, they should not. Mentally unstable should only be allowed to handle firearms when working for the government or law enforcement. Law abiding, sane, citizens should disarm, worship King Obama and awe in his wisdom.

Funny, Eddie (25.1)! Mentally unstable should only be armed if government employees. Brings to mind Lon Honicher, the FBI agent that killed Vicky Weaver as she stood in her doorway, child in her arms. She was incredibly dangerous, wielding a child that way. The same group of agents also killed her son, after killing his dog.

This perp was diagnosed as a juvenile. Juvenile records are sealed. I don't think murderers should be tried as children, regardless of age. Let the Court decide guilt or innocence, and base punishment on how it determines mental capacity, but keep it in adult court and keep records open. That would eliminate the problem of hiding violent juvenile offenders.

Unless their mentally irresponible, they're entitled to the same rights you are. They used guns in the war to fight for your freedom, and protecting people who can't protect themselves.