Skip to main content

View Diary: Criminally Insane Man arrested with 36 guns (331 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Exactly - guns need to be better regulated, (13+ / 0-)

    like we regulate roads and cars, and a good place to do this is at the intersection of guns and violent people, and especially violent mentally ill people. Everyone should have to have a background check, register their guns with the state, perform annual licensing/testing. Anyone possessing an unregistered gun should be penalized and the gun should be taken - maybe it be returned if certain requirements are met.

    And, you seem conflicted about what to do with violently mentally ill - today you say:

    Keep the violent mentally ill in jail where they belong. Their rights were removed in court through due process.
    But not all violently mentally ill have been convicted of crimes, and there was not due process.

    yesterday you said:

    thought crime and discrimination against the mentally ill. Which is why he's getting his guns back.  Your choices are to lock him up, or give him his full rights. Want to go on record advocating prison for all schitzophrenics who've committed no other crime?
    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    It seems you are now advocating to lock up violently mentally ill in jail even if they haven't been convicted of a crime ... ?

    •  No contradiction (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy

      If they haven't been convicted of a crime, then they have their rights and will pass a background check.

      If they're so dangerous and violent they'd fail a background check, like having committed murder, keep them locked up.

      Those are still your two choices. Pick one. Anyone who's been defined by the state as violently mentally ill has had due process and should be locked up.

      That's how you eliminate the intersection of guns and the violently mentally ill.

      •  So then how is it that the guy in Connecticut was (7+ / 0-)

        let free and his guns were returned to him? He threatened to kill someone but hadn't been convicted of a crime. Is that due process?

        The easiest and most common sense solution is to take the guns.

        •  Did he commit an action? (0+ / 0-)

          Either he did or he didn't. If he didn't commit an action, if the threat was thoughtcrime only, and he's being releasesed as not a danger, then he gets to keep his guns. Because he has all of his rights. He's being released by the state, sounds like due process to me.

          If instead the threat was an action, then he should be charged with a crime and kept locked up if he's a danger to others. If he can't be trusted with a gun, he can't be trusted at all.  

          Do you really want a caste system, where dangerous people are set free, but not really free because they can't be trusted and must be constantly monitored?  You want to take the guns, but not charge him with any crime?

          But if you don't like the CT law, take it up with them, I don't live there.

          •  asdf (5+ / 0-)
            Do you really want a caste system, where dangerous people are set free, but not really free because they can't be trusted and must be constantly monitored?
            You mean like the parole system and sex offender registries?

            "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

            by Reepicheep on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 08:28:36 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  How do you disarm a sex offender? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Reepicheep

              Would you release a rapist from prison if you thought he was very likely to rape again?  

              Would you release a murderer if you though he would kill again?  Or would you deny parole?

              If they can't be trusted, they shouldn't be released. It's that simple. Keep in jail anyone who can't be trusted to own a gun.  Safer than trying to forever police a black market in guns. How's the war on drugs working out for you?

              •  Jail anyone who can't be (4+ / 0-)

                trusted with a gun.  Well that is so much more sensible than requiring background checks at gun shows.

                "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

                by Reepicheep on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 08:51:02 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Or both. But again, war on drugs. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Reepicheep

                  We can have background checks at gun shows AND not release violent murderers. Doesn't have to be either/or.

                  But why do you think criminals wont get around background checks?  The black market trade in drugs is completely shut down, right?  Illegal drugs are impossible to find and insanely expensive yes?

                  •  I guess you are right, Norm. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    earicicle

                    There is nothing any of us can possibly to to decrease the gun violence in our country.  We should take it as an unavoidable fact of modern life that lunatics will stockpile automatic weapons and then commit mass murder. That seems a small price to pay to guarantee that law abiding people can go hunting on the weekend.

                    "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

                    by Reepicheep on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 12:57:45 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I offered up disarming the police. (0+ / 0-)

                      First of all automatic weapons are banned and if anyone is stockpiling them, they're buying through the black market where there are no background checks at all. So don't over react.

                      Now if you want to limit magazine sizes and semi-auto rifles, then the police should do the same and lead by example.  You do want to limit gun violence right?

                      Or are you also going to tell me the cops can't give up their big guns, because big guns are the only way to stop bad guys?

                      Why does a beat cop need a semi-auto weapon with a 17 round clip?  And don't tell me cops are responsible. I read the gun fail diaries.

                      •  This is a really clever argument (0+ / 0-)

                        More assertions based on legal theories pulled out of the ether.

                        If you want to understand the first thing about the regulating assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and the constitutionality of same, you might want to start here, Norm.

                        1927
                        1932

                        When you read the CD Circuit Court of Appeals decision on Heller II, please make a note when you encounter those two years and the courts discussion of the constitutionality of those laws. Two laws were upheld under intermediate scrutiny.

                        1927 (Michigan, 16 round limit)
                        1932 (DC, 12 round limit)

                        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                        by LilithGardener on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 02:23:36 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Never claimed mag limits aren't constitutional (0+ / 0-)

                          I have no constitutional issue with magazine limits. But just because a law is legal, doesn't mean GOP legislators will pass it.

                          What I said is that the cops should lead by example, and give up large mags first. That would go a long way towards getting people in this country to follow suit.

                          Because maybe you've noticed, but gun laws are getting looser, not tighter. If you want to turn the tide, might want to consider my advise. Or stick with the status quo, your call.

              •  Sex offenders go to jail. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                earicicle, LilithGardener

                And in pretty much every state, once they are released they are subject to lifetime registration requirements.  Their names and the fact that they are sex offenders is public information.  

                In addition, most state laws place restrictions on where adjudicated sex offenders can live.  These restrictions can be very, very tight.  In fact, in Florida, there have been cases of local jurisdictions effectively barring sex offenders from living there.

                That's how sex offenders are "disarmed."

                "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                by FogCityJohn on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 01:10:53 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  By preventing access to their "addiction" (0+ / 0-)

                  That's a useful analogy, FogCityJohn.

                  Have to admit that, as much as I don't like painting all gun offenders with a broad brush. It's so easy for corrupt police to manufacture gun possession/reason to search you, reason to search your vehicle, reason to search your home...

                  When many gun possession charges are really the "petty crime" of gun violence. We need to develop the analogy of sex criminal restrictions for application to Domestic violence misdemeanors.

                  "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                  by LilithGardener on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 02:27:19 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, I think Pres Obama saw what you explain in (0+ / 0-)

            your comment is a problem and has poposed changes that solve it so that this person would not be allowed to get his guns back - ie, "thoughtcrime" - although in this case, he didn't just think it - he said it, articulated with specific examples of how he could kill someone.

            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

            by We Shall Overcome on Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 03:38:50 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  This is wrong (10+ / 0-)
        If they haven't been convicted of a crime, then they have their rights and will pass a background check.
        You don't have to be convicted of a crime to lose your gun rights. Lilith provided the law and 4 examples where that is not the case.

        This guy was found not guilty by reason of insanity. With the designation of insanity, he should be in the NICS database. But, thats useless if he's buying guns at places where background checks aren't required.

      •  FALSE - Norm, please stop repeating false claims (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        earicicle, tytalus, Miggles, WakeUpNeo

        about the threshold for losing the right to buy/sell/own guns.

        Federal law defines prohibited persons, as shown below. States have additional laws, some more strict than Federal law.

        Norm, you are very much mistaken about the requirement of a conviction as the threshold for losing gun rights. You could educate yourself, starting at the ATF, which has many useful pages explaining federal gun law.

        ATF - How to identify prohibited persons

        Identify Prohibited Persons

        The Gun Control Act (GCA) makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms. 18 USC 922(g). Transfers of firearms to any such prohibited persons are also unlawful. 18 USC 922(d).

        These categories include any person:

            Under indictment or information in any court for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
            convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
            who is a fugitive from justice;
            who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
            who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
            who is an illegal alien;
            who has been discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions;
            who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
            who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
            who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (enacted by the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 104-208, effective September 30, 1996). 18 USC 922(g) and (n).

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:56:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  In my opinion... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      i saw an old tree today, 88kathy

      People who possess a gun under the premise of 'personal protection' are already to some extent mentally ill.

      •  Look, I'm not a fan of RKBA (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        peterfallow, skohayes

        but this is sort of ridiculous. A sportsman/hunter with a shotgun isn't mentally ill.

        An athlete competing in the Olympics trap or skeet events isn't mentally ill.

        •  Well a PETA member might see the first one (0+ / 0-)

          differently.

          And what if trap and skeet were discontinued as a Olympic event, would that repeal the 2ndA.

          Olympics Dueling Pistol  DISCONTINUED    1906

          Live Pigeon Shooting DISCONTINUED    1900

          other Shooting events:

          Mixed Pistol, Revolver, Automatic Pistol, Army Gun, Full-Bore Rifle, Running Deer, Small-Bore Rifle, Free Rifle, Military Rifle.    

          DISCONTINUED

          1896, 1900, 1908, 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928, 1936

          Now they have the 2nd (safety net for sloppy) Amendment, and can't be infringed to actually treat their gun like a gun and not a video game controller.

          by 88kathy on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:32:13 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  that wouldn't make PETA person correct (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            88kathy

            insane? really, you're better than that kathy.

            •  Hunting is not tiddly winks. It is a blood sport. (0+ / 0-)

              Is not a justification for possession of guns or proof of sanity. (it's not reason to ban guns or proof of insanity either) It is what it is.

              And Olympic sports come and go. The dueling pistol competition must have been quite a spectacle. So up until 1906, you could just say we were practicing for our upcoming dueling pistol competition. There was some agony of defeat involved.

              Now they have the 2nd (safety net for sloppy) Amendment, and can't be infringed to actually treat their gun like a gun and not a video game controller.

              by 88kathy on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:01:15 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  well, to be fair... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fcvaguy, poco

          the commenter above did say only those who possess under the premise of "personal protection', which wouldn't inclue the sportmen/hunter types or the athletes engaged in trap or skeet shooting.

          Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

          by a gilas girl on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 01:00:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  That's really not fair to the millions of people (3+ / 0-)

        who seek and get treatment for mental health issues, such as anxiety, paranoia, and delusions. Most people who suffer from mental illness are not violent, and most will never seek to own a gun.

        Please don't reinforce the problem of prejudice/stigma that already serves to inhibit people from getting healthcare that they may need and deserve.

        ALEC/NRA wants to criminalize mental illness. It's gross, it's scapegoating, it's unfair, and it's not progressive in any sense of the word. Please don't volunteer to be their useful idiot by making such statements.

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:42:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh no, that wasn't what I'd meant at all... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener

          And I also wasn't describing hunters. I was talking about people who carry weapons for personal protection (protection from other people, not snakes or bears, etc) and the associated paranoia that type of protection requires. It's a kind of paranoia that I think almost requires a certain degree of mental illness that the carrier of the protection/weapon, his/her friends, and quite a few people who might notice the sidearm are completely unaware of.
          Mental illness has been a figurative aspect of our family life for many years... I'm so sorry the comment came across any other way.

          •  Thank you for your thoughtful (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Miggles

            reply.

            Please reconsider your objective. Is it to label/stigmatize? Or is it to inspire/compel our fellow Dems to hold our elected reps feet to the fire and pass common sense gun reform?

            I believe your comment was very clear and that I understood it completely. And I believe I appreciate where you are coming from. Here in New York, an applicant for public concealed carry has to convince a county official that they have a "good cause" for being licensed to carry. Handgun owners have to get a license to own in their home... but I digress.

            There are legitimate reasons why someone may want/need to have a gun in their home or carry a gun public. Some persons are judges, undercover police officers, witnesses, who have or haven't testified in a trial, and victims of stalking and harassment, or people who have been subject to threats of violence by angry neighbors, angry relatives, angry drug dealers in their neighborhood, etc.

            Your comment really is offensive because you are dismissing a broad section of people whose lives are simply not as safe as yours. It's inappropriate because a) you're not qualified to diagnose mental illness, b) no one can diagnose mental illness based internet reports of a person's behavior, c) the diagnostic standards for anxiety, paranoia, and delusions are nuanced and don't stand alone.

            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

            by LilithGardener on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 02:06:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Arguing with Norm is like running on an (5+ / 0-)

      old rusty treadmill. Good luck!

      •  Norm graduated from the FrankRose school of (5+ / 0-)

        blogging, where continuous disruptive trolling can be justified as long as "someone replies to me".

        As long as people reply, he will use that fact to justify continuing.

        And remember, you can't HR someone your having a conversation with.

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:45:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site