(June 23, 2016 at 10:50 pm)Rhythm Wrote: What vetting process -would- or -should- have ruled him out? No charges, no convictions, no declaration that he was unfit. Any of these things would have blipped him at the bc check, contrary to popular belief neither crazy nor criminal can legally purchase or possess a rifle in this country.
In any case, you fail to understand due process. We -do- contend that the accused have a right to face their accuser in this country, and not only that, the right to appeal a ruling. To be legally barred from purchasing or possessing a rifle, under our laws, conditions must be met. It wasn't invented yesterday as an excuse for guns..it's one of the foundations of our justice system. Can you see why a person might be a little unnerved to hear you call it an excuse, and wave it off as though it meant nothing? You're playing into conspiracy theory/fascist left nuts hands when you say shit like that....and then wondering why they say the crazy shit they do. It's like slapping someone in the face repeatedly and then asking, in feigned surprise "umadbro?".
Perhaps they should have consulted the magic 8-ball? Maybe a pre-crime unit? Is that the sort of gun policy you'd find amenable?
Has anyone read the bill are we just assuming this is a "police state issue".
FYI the proposed bill DOES have an appeal process.
What the do you mean crazy or criminal can't legally get them? The Virginia Tech shooter WAS mentally ill. He had no record when he LEGALLY bought the guns he used to murder 30 people. Not sure you are understanding me here.
Nobody is promoting "presumption of guilt". I think some here are confusing a call to make less guns an a call for a better vetting process as being the same as "assume guilt". That is absolute nonsense. This is the bologna fear mongering the NRA has scared everybody with.
Vetting is what coaches do before they give you a starting position on a sports team. Vetting is what a MD degree is, that gives you the right to operate on others legally. The Va Tech Shooter who was mentally ill NEVER should have been allowed to buy the two handguns he used to murder 30 people. It would be like handing a medical licence to the mentally ill simply because the person was never diagnosed.
"Criminals will get their hands on them anyway" so "do nothing"...... Nope, sorry again, not buying it.
Lets say I want to be a Secret Service agent. According to the logic of some, any attempt to make sure I can handle the job of protecting the president is a presumption of guilt? This is the horrible logic gun worshipers have? If you claim you want to keep them out of the wrong hands, then tell me why anyone would think "no record" at time of buy is enough?
It is insane that everyone rightfully wants cops and military to be well trained, but civilians all you need is no record? It isn't presumption of guilt to insure that someone can handle a task and hand a responsibility. Just like you don't automatically get a job just because you want one.
