Not again.....

[Southpaw]

But if we here in TX pass a law that brings the 2A under strict scrutiny, every time one of these cases in adjudicated, the prosecutor would have to prove a compelling governmental need before stripping someone of their rights.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Strict+Scrutiny

At what point would this strict scrutiny be applied to hash out the nuts from the not nuts?

 

[karlac]

But if we here in TX pass a law that brings the 2A under strict scrutiny, every time one of these cases in adjudicated, the prosecutor would have to prove a compelling governmental need before stripping someone of their rights.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Strict+Scrutiny

Sure, like "prosecutors" have done with Aaron Swatrz, Edward Snowden, et al...

 

[bdee]

At what point would this strict scrutiny be applied to hash out the nuts from the not nuts?

The point is that under strict scrutiny, the prosecutor would have to prove to the judge that taking away their gun and their legal ability to acquire guns, is necessary for the government to do its job. That is a very high burden to meet. And it would have to be adjudicated on a case by case basis, not applied to a 'class' of people.

So, let's say some prosecutor wanted to take my guns away from me, and make sure I failed every background check. First, they would have to prove that I represented a danger to myself or other people. Second, they would have to prove that doing so was necessary for the government to do its job, nearly impossible for most people.

In the case of Holmes in Aurora, he had been referred to a psychiatrist, he told the psychiatrist that he fantasized about killing people, that he wanted to kill people, and that he had the means to do so. Yet, there was no legal mechanism to get him him before a judge and do anything about him.

 

[texas skeeter]

A friend sent me this.....


CNN is denying that they altered the "selfie" photo that the shooter posted to online social media to depict him as white, when he is bi-racial.

Snopes claims that the accusations against CNN are false. I read their rationale - it basically consists of someone at CNN denying it... what a surprise.

Of course the original photos posted online have vanished so at this point you have to take someone's word for what they saw or didn't see.

Apparently CNN has doctored a "selfie" the shooter posted of himself on social media. For reasons I can't fathom, CNN has altered the photo of the shooter to conceal the fact that he is bi-racial. His father is white, his mother is black. CNN photoshopped his nose to appear narrower, removed two moles, and lightened his complexion. In my mind, this is akin to Bryan Jennings making up stories out of whole cloth. WHY ON EARTH WOULD A MAJOR NEWS OUTLET PAY SOMEONE TO SIT DOWN AND DO THIS? Altering the nose is CLEARLY intentional and took fairly sophisticated software likd Photoshop.

You can't believe the mainstream media anymore folks. None of what you read and as this incident proves, only some of what you see.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015...im-look-white/

 

[grasshopperglock]

http://www.fromthetrenchesworldrepo...ia-profile-shaped-modified-and-deleted/143286

 

[texas skeeter]

lol

 

[F350-6]

So in 1996 they passed the Brady Bill, how many of its provisions are being protested to this day?

Sorry, what year? And how did the final bill compare to what they originally wanted? Remember this all started with the Reagan attempt back in 81, so it's not like there wasn't some compromise along the way by the leftists to get it finally passed.

Unfortunately I'm old enough to have had to do the 5 day waiting thing thanks to President Clinton's signature.

 

[peeps]

Did it occur to anyone (bdee especially) that these assholes mass murder because they see it on TV and want to do it themselves? Want to see what it feels like? To outdo what has been done before?

The only way we're really going to stop this shit is not to look at what gun laws we can pass. Not look at what mental illness laws we can pass. The only thing that will stop it is a bullet from a good guy with a gun. The more we see good guys preventing these sort of incidents, the less likely these cowards are going to try it. Pretty simple if you ask me.

 

[bdee]

Sorry, what year? And how did the final bill compare to what they originally wanted? Remember this all started with the Reagan attempt back in 81, so it's not like there wasn't some compromise along the way by the leftists to get it finally passed.

Unfortunately I'm old enough to have had to do the 5 day waiting thing thanks to President Clinton's signature.

Hmm not sure where I got 1996, it was enacted in 1994. good catch.

 

[bdee]

Did it occur to anyone (bdee especially) that these assholes mass murder because they see it on TV and want to do it themselves? Want to see what it feels like? To outdo what has been done before?

The only way we're really going to stop this shit is not to look at what gun laws we can pass. Not look at what mental illness laws we can pass. The only thing that will stop it is a bullet from a good guy with a gun. The more we see good guys preventing these sort of incidents, the less likely these cowards are going to try it. Pretty simple if you ask me.

How about we put our heads in the sand, and after 25 more mass murders, when the left wants to talk about taking everyone's guns away, and the public is willing to listen, limiting the conversation to dealing with mental illness will not be an option. That ship will have sailed.

 

[Younggun]

You can do whatever you want with mental illness. They'll take it, then move on the the next excuse. They are experts at chipping away. "Just give them this so they will stop" is how we got where we are now. And they still haven't stopped.

 

[Mreed911]

How about we put our heads in the sand, and after 25 more mass murders, when the left wants to talk about taking everyone's guns away, and the public is willing to listen, limiting the conversation to dealing with mental illness will not be an option. That ship will have sailed.

How about we stop glorifying serial/spree killers?

Stop using their names, report ONLY on the victims. Not the attack, not the killer, nothing about him. Nothing. Focus on the victims.

No notoriety, no motive.

How about we glorify folks that defend themselves or others, and report nothing of their cowardly attackers until we publicly execute them (if they happen to survive), with no "last words" and a bag over their head (maybe with holes so you can see their fear as they die)?


No notoriety, no motive.

 

[grasshopperglock]

How about we stop glorifying serial/spree killers?

Stop using their names, report ONLY on the victims. Not the attack, not the killer, nothing about him. Nothing. Focus on the victims.

No notoriety, no motive.

How about we glorify folks that defend themselves or others, and report nothing of their cowardly attackers until we publicly execute them (if they happen to survive), with no "last words" and a bag over their head (maybe with holes so you can see their fear as they die)?


No notoriety, no motive.

His manifesto' will explain it all. Just like all the manifestos that seem to have written. It's like watching a re-run.

 

[F350-6]

You can do whatever you want with mental illness. They'll take it, then move on the the next excuse. They are experts at chipping away. "Just give them this so they will stop" is how we got where we are now. And they still haven't stopped.

The problem with the mental illness angle is it's being fought by the leftist mental health professionals. They're not so dumb as to realize that if they actually report who shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun, no one will ever visit them for fear of being labeled.

Pushing the mental health angle pits leftist against leftist. That is aside from the veterans. The vets just get screwed in this deal because any disability or mention of PTSD, combat exposure, etc. could easily turn into a no gun ruling.

 

[Mreed911]

His manifesto' will explain it all. Just like all the manifestos that seem to have written. It's like watching a re-run.

You misunderstand. Notoriety is always the motive. If he left a manifesto it shouldn't be read - it should be publicly mocked, derided and destroyed without having been read. Don't let the next guy contemplating it think HE could get HIS message out...

 

[FrankT]

The problem with the mental illness angle is it's being fought by the leftist mental health professionals. They're not so dumb as to realize that if they actually report who shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun, no one will ever visit them for fear of being labeled.

Pushing the mental health angle pits leftist against leftist. That is aside from the veterans. The vets just get screwed in this deal because any disability or mention of PTSD, combat exposure, etc. could easily turn into a no gun ruling.

This is already happening with many traumatic brain injured and PTSD Vets. They have lost their financial rights and right to go and buy a gun...Many of them in my area and I am sure all over the Country.

 

[grasshopperglock]

You misunderstand. Notoriety is always the motive. If he left a manifesto it shouldn't be read - it should be publicly mocked, derided and destroyed without having been read. Don't let the next guy contemplating it think HE could get HIS message out...

Yet it's gonna be released. It'll say he's lonely. Just like the California kid. Girls don't like me.

 

[Vaquero]

"Let's roll"

 

[Mreed911]

Yet it's gonna be released. It'll say he's lonely. Just like the California kid. Girls don't like me.

You're still not understanding.

The FACT that it's going to be released IS the problem. It's the cause. It's what they want.

Until we stop glorifying them, they won't stop doing horrific things to get their message out and, in their own minds, be seen as "listened to."

 

[grasshopperglock]

You're still not understanding.

The FACT that it's going to be released IS the problem. It's the cause. It's what they want.

Until we stop glorifying them, they won't stop doing horrific things to get their message out and, in their own minds, be seen as "listened to."

I think another pronoun would be better suited in that spot.