Arlington Man Loses Gun License Due To Blog About Tucson Shooting

Crosscheck said:

If a neighbor had a pit bull that had shown aggressiveness against humans that got loose from their yard and ripped your child apart.

Would you say the dog was totally at fault and owner shouldn't have no guilt?

Click to expand...

Apples and oranges, my man.

StillBallin75 said:

There was plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest he was mentally ill. Ultimately, if he was, he never got treatment for it.

Click to expand...

The hear-say of people who are not trained shrinks? You want to deny people their constitutional rights based on hear-say?

Responsibility in this case probably lies with the parents and those close to him.

Click to expand...

Responsibility lies with the murderer.

danarhea said:

I really want to see if anyone is going to defend this. My bet is that nobody in his right mind will.

Click to expand...

i won't defend what he said, but i'll defend his right to trial. he has no record, he's not being charged with anything. convict him of something, then take action, supposed to be the way in this country.

Crosscheck said:

If a neighbor had a pit bull that had shown aggressiveness against humans that got loose from their yard and ripped your child apart.

Would you say the dog was totally at fault and owner shouldn't have no guilt?

Click to expand...

A dog is property and the dog would be put down with no trial.

StillBallin75 said:

The simple answers, I personally believe rights come with responsibilities. The First Amendment protects free speech to a certain degree, but it is not unlimited (classic example yelling fire in a theater). Likewise, gun ownership is also a right that comes with responsibilities.

Click to expand...

this is why yelling fire in a theater shouldn't be punishable, makes a good reason to ban any speech.

apdst

I was referring to a statement of principle used to defend this guy which rested on the fact that he had broken no laws. I used the Loughner case to suggest that perhaps this was not a good guideline as Loughner had broken no laws. It was not a complicated argument. It shouldn't be too difficult to follow. It was not a statement that the two cases were identical in every way, nor even similar in most, just that they stood comparison when it came to the fact that they had broken no laws. You have a choice. You can deal with my argument or you can misrepresent it. You choose to misrepresent it.

This guy has rights protectd by the constitution but he should not be calling for murdering politicians. Now if he had said that we need to slap them around and knock some sense into them I'd be down with that.

jamesrage said:

I realize that this is off topic but what evidence was there that Loughner was mentally ill? Did he go to a certified quack to be examined? You want gunshops, walmarts and other stores to take part in denying people their constitutional rights based on hear say? This is a man who had planned ahead. Those unconstitutional waiting periods, unconstitutional licenses and any other unconstitutional laws would have not stopped Loughner. So yes Loughner should have been able to buy a gun. Are you suggesting that the federal government have a database of hear-say made by people with no degrees what so ever in the mental health field in order to block other people from owning fire-arms?



Yes there is a poll
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/89655-should-az-shooter-have-been-able-buy-gun.html

Click to expand...

I mean why don't you stand for election on the basis that there should be no restriction on unstable or mentally ill people having the right to buy and carry guns?

Your position is clear though. Thank you. You do not believe that behaviour which demonstrates instability or a lack of normal self-control in personal behaviour be taken into account by the authorities when they decide whether to issue a license. As long as such behaviour is not criminal.

This is a logical position for a libertarian to take. Why for example should the State have the right to restrict anyone else's right unless they have been convicted of a crime by a jury of their peers?

The problem is that people like Loughner, who were judged too unstable to join the army, are therefore permitted to carry guns, and in the state of Arizona, to conceal this. Libertarians consider dead nine year old girls a price worth paying for this "freedom".

Other regard people who demonstrate unstable or threatening behaviour, such as this Arlington jerk, to be at least worth investigating and checking out before letting him loose in the land with a lethal weapon.

It's a question of judgement. Of course all of us who live in countries which have proper control over those who can carry guns are struggling under the yoke of tyranny. That's the clincher I suppose.

apdst said:

Not all criminals have what it takes to kill someone. Death penalty, or not.

Click to expand...

true but making a death a freebie is rather stupid.

ever read "The Onion Field"

Proud South Korean said:

Well, I oppose the death penalty for serious crimes, not because I think it's inhumane, but because I think it's too good for these convicts. They should get life imprisonment with horrible food, 23 hours in a small cell, terrible treatment, brutal guards. These monsters shouldn't get a peaceful, painless, quick death. They deserve life in punishment.

However, that's another story.

My position about this is very simple.

He may have not shot anybody, but nevertheless, he's dangerous. Nobody arrrested him. He just lost his gun license, not probably the end of life for someone. People even have and carry guns without licenses, like someone proudly said earlier in this thread. There's a good reason to take precautions. For example, if someone with a gun threatens to shoot another person, would you not arrest himn? Or at least revoke his gun license? Would you wait until he shot someone that you would arrest him or revoke his gun license? There's good reasons why people suspected of supporting terrorism are arrested, and why communists in SK are arrested. They might have not committed the crime, but they have much more possibility of doing so than regular people. We must not take chances.

Click to expand...

using your logic every criminal who merely threatens violence should get a life sentence

People saying that this guy is having his rights infringed upon are being silly. People get arrested all the time for inciting violence against others regardless of the fact that there is a 1st amendment. With rights come responsibilities. If he was arguing that politicians should be shot, hey, take his gun away and let him complain about the NWO Jared-style.

Zyroh said:

this is why yelling fire in a theater shouldn't be punishable, makes a good reason to ban any speech.

Click to expand...

not "any speech" is equivalent to yelling fire in a theater though. slippery slope fallacy.

The hear-say of people who are not trained shrinks? You want to deny people their constitutional rights based on hear-say?

Click to expand...

From the Atlantic blog Daily Dish, a reader posted:

I'm a licensed psychologist with 20 years experience. I've watched the Jared Loughner Youtube videos. They show evidence of delusions of persecution. Loughner's less than coherent language also suggests a formal thought disorder. While Loughner can't be diagnosed without a full exam conducted in person, there are significant indications in the videos that he suffers from a psychotic disorder.

I would not rule out drugs as a factor, but he is within the age range that psychotic patients often suffer their first psychotic break. If I had to guess, I'd go with paranoid schizophrenia. If that's the case, his politics are irrelevant. He may not even be fit to stand trial unless and until his psychotic thinking is brought under control with medication.

Click to expand...

Admittedly the guy didn't examine him in-person, and I agree we shouldn't jump the gun on diagnosing the Loughner. But given what we've seen so far it's certainly reasonable to suspect that he had some issues, and it's not just "not-trained-shrinks" who think this.

Responsibility lies with the murderer.

Click to expand...

If the shooter were indeed mentally ill, do you expect all mentally ill people to check themselves into a psych ward to get themselves some help?

Zyroh said:

this is why yelling fire in a theater shouldn't be punishable, makes a good reason to ban any speech.

Click to expand...

Until your kids die in the theater stampede eh?

Well since you asked. I don't think the comment constituted an actual threat. If we were punishing people through government force against the rights of the individual for every time someone said something about shooting a politician or hanging them or whatever; I dare say many of us would be in dire straights right now. While it is irresponsible to carte blanche advocate violence against the government, it is still a valid and proper tool of the People. Are we at the point where we really need to employ it? No, I don't believe we are. However, violence is the ultimate check against the government the People have. Revolt is a proper tool of the People. Now people have said for decades and more now in jest or sometimes not that so and so politician should be sent to the gallows or something of the sort. I don't think it is proper to use government force against people saying that unless there is evidence indicating that it is a credible threat. That's it.

Click to expand...

I'm going to take issue with a couple of things, please understand I'm not taking issue with you

You say you don't think this was an actual threat, in reality I would agree with you. But (damn there always seems to be a but) we have no way of knowing this for sure, my opinion is that no one considering killing anyone would post it on the net for all to see. Regardless of what our opinions are there is no way we can “know” what he was thinking. I seriously think that most friends of the AZ shooter, if asked a month before it happened, if they thought he could be a mass murderer most would have said no way.

I agree fully that most of us when sitting with friends or family, have said things like shoot them all .. or something along those lines at one time or another. Even liberals I dare say have uttered words of such nature about Bush, even tho they won't admit it. But (there it is again) this was written for all to see including law enforcement. I'm not sure if that is the same thing as threatening someone in front of a policeman or not, but I do know that if you threaten someone in front of a cop, chances are good that you are going directly to jail. Seeing this is in plain sight of any law enforcement agency I would assume its the same as making a threat in front of an officer of the law.

Last … and I have seen this in many posts .. what rights are being trampled upon? He wasn't arrested, he hasn't been charged, the only thing that has happened to him is the removal of his weapons and license, and it has been stated this is temporarily. What or how is this man being punished for what he said, other then law enforcement wanting to know if he is insane or if he is just a loud mouth jerk for making such insane and vulgar statements.

Being conservative myself, and owning many weapons, I sometime hate to disagree with fellow conservatives, but in this case I just feel that as gun owners we need to be even more critical of an idiot loudmouth like this. I just don't feel right defending someone that posts a blog to the internet with such vile intent, be it real, or just the rantings of a idiot. Even more so in light of the fact that it comes so soon after the Az. Shootings. Way to often we need to defend ourselves from unwarranted attacks from the left, to worry about someone like this guy.

If issuing "gun licenses" and limiting the right to keep and bear arms without one were already accepted-- as our Supreme Court seems inclined to accept-- then making statements such as this gentleman's would be quite a good reason for said license to be revoked.

However, I do not think that such licenses are acceptable.

Plato said:

Until your kids die in the theater stampede eh?

Click to expand...

don't assume all kids are as dumb/***** as yours.

If issuing "gun licenses" and limiting the right to keep and bear arms without one were already accepted-- as our Supreme Court seems inclined to accept-- then making statements such as this gentleman's would be quite a good reason for said license to be revoked.

However, I do not think that such licenses are acceptable.

Click to expand...

I was confused as well with the term “license” so I looked it up, MA. Has some of the strictest gun laws around, the police dept. issues firearm identification cards and license to carry permits so I assumed this is what they were talking about when saying they took his gun licenses.

Hatuey said:

People saying that this guy is having his rights infringed upon are being silly. People get arrested all the time for inciting violence against others regardless of the fact that there is a 1st amendment. With rights come responsibilities. If he was arguing that politicians should be shot, hey, take his gun away and let him complain about the NWO Jared-style.

Click to expand...

I'm all for first and second amendment rights but damn. When someone is inciting violence, they need to be taken to task. Advocating the murder of opposing politicians is beyond the pale. I seriously can't imagine anyone debating that it's all right to advocate shooting politicians they disagree with. Scary world we live in.

Viktyr Korimir said:

If issuing "gun licenses" and limiting the right to keep and bear arms without one were already accepted-- as our Supreme Court seems inclined to accept-- then making statements such as this gentleman's would be quite a good reason for said license to be revoked.

Click to expand...

The error in thought, here, as I see it, is that if this guy were serious and could potentially kill an elected official, taking his license away from him isn't going to stop him from doing just that. Just my opinion.

DiAnna said:

I'm all for first and second amendment rights but damn. When someone is inciting violence, they need to be taken to task. Advocating the murder of opposing politicians is beyond the pale. I seriously can't imagine anyone debating that it's all right to advocate shooting politicians they disagree with. Scary world we live in.

Click to expand...

There's the other problem: this guy isn't inciting violence, anymore than Sarah Palin, or Paul Krugman incited violence.

danarhea said:

The fruitcakes are still out there, and this particular fruitcake needs to be in jail for threatening the lives of Congresspersons. I am waiting for people to post in this thread about the poor man's first amendment rights being trampled.

And here is the problem. Along with rights come responsibilities. Of course, there are some who have the right to scream without consequences. They are babies of course. They scream if they want their diaper changed. They scream if they are hungry. They scream if the can't have access to their favorite toy. And that's OK. After all, we are talking about a baby here. As a child grows into a man or woman, the paradigm changes, as responsibility is taught. And grownups just don't claim a first amendment right to advocate murder of government officials. As far as the Second Amendment goes, this Bozo just forfeited his right to it. Again, this is about responsibility. Should criminals be allowed to have guns? Important question, since what this man advocated on his blog is definitely criminal.



I really want to see if anyone is going to defend this. My bet is that nobody in his right mind will.

Discussion?

Article is here.

Click to expand...

Yep...free speech does not mean free from consequence. They guy is a dumbass. Im sure he was attempting to show how 'edgy' he is.

apdst said:

There's the other problem: this guy isn't inciting violence, anymore than Sarah Palin, or Paul Krugman incited violence.

Click to expand...

I dont think he is inciting anyone to act. I do think he demonstrated the type of mindset that certainly merits local law enforcement reviewing his concealed carry status.

VanceMack said:

I dont think he is inciting anyone to act. I do think he demonstrated the type of mindset that certainly merits local law enforcement reviewing his concealed carry status.

Click to expand...

So they take his concealed carry permit away from him. What's that going to accomplish? He's not going to commit murder, because he can't legally carry a concealed weapon?