John Hinkley Jr on the loose.

[Spongebob]

As a side note, after reading about Hinkley's trial and the aftermath, its kind of astonishing that the federal government and several states reformed laws regarding the insanity defense, some abolishing it altogether.  Yet now, with so many mass shootings and so many deaths every year, we have almost no action in government to try and address the issue.  I don't understand why the president getting shot is so much more important than random citizens getting shot, including 6 year olds.

Look at all the damage Hinkley would have prevented had he succeeded. Ordinary people don't have the malevolent influence on their country that Reagan did in the eight years his regime held the White House.

Well, that's one way to look at it.

---

Well, yes.  If it's important to address something when it happens to the president, it should be equally important when the victim is a regular citizen.

My take is that the president is a much more high profile person who attracts a lot more scrutiny and hatred from the general populace, and with mental cases, maybe even more so. The office of president carries a lot of responsibilities that most people in the rest of the population don't. I don't mean to sound dismissive with this, but replacing a duly elected president isn't as easy as replacing yet another citizen who has none of the president's responsibilities, or experiences. We've been recently subjected to an anomalous case where a president getting shot and killed would have most likely been a positive result for the world.

I disagree about the replacement part.  The POTUS has a built in backup.  In most cases it wouldn't change much if the Pres left and the VP took over for a few years.  Trump's case is probably the biggest exception in that opinion.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Quit being willfully stupid.

There is miles betweeen a justified, legal shooting and an assassination attempt on the POTUS.

Why ISN' T he allowed to own firearms if he isn' t a threat?

Answer - because he is a VERIFIED threat.

Answer because they won't let him own a gun which in no way proves he is still a threat or they wouldn't be releasing him. He's also not allowed to drink or do drugs does that also prove he's a threat?

[Divinity]

The NRA must be slacking. Why haven't they put a gun in his hands yet?

Good question. Since anyone who claims Hinkley is "OK" now, would that mean he now has the right to own a firearm? Even if you cure a drunk driver with multiple DUIs ,is it wrong to permanently ban them from driving, even if you let them out of prison?

Even outside Hinkley, our nations laws let people get out of jail/prison only to go back to repeating the same things that got them there in the first place. 

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not a Trumpster, I am not a "lock them up and throw away the key".  But I do think process counts, and I don't think it is either/or.

Should a six year old be allowed to own a firearm? Or should we just lock them up? What outrageous logic.

Many states don't allow felons to own firearms, but allow them to be free.

[Rev. Rye]

Good question. Since anyone who claims Hinkley is "OK" now, would that mean he now has the right to own a firearm? Even if you cure a drunk driver with multiple DUIs ,is it wrong to permanently ban them from driving, even if you let them out of prison?

Even outside Hinkley, our nations laws let people get out of jail/prison only to go back to repeating the same things that got them there in the first place. 

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not a Trumpster, I am not a "lock them up and throw away the key".  But I do think process counts, and I don't think it is either/or.

Should a six year old be allowed to own a firearm? Or should we just lock them up? What outrageous logic.

Many states don't allow felons to own firearms, but allow them to be free.

Knowing what I know about Biker, I'm almost certain that his answer to "should a six-year-old be allowed to own a firearm?" is a resounding Yes.

Also worth noting, I know a lot of jurisdictions where felons are routinely denied the privilege of drinking alcohol, even if their crimes had bugger-all to do with booze.

[onlinebiker]

Should a six year old be allowed to own a firearm? Or should we just lock them up? What outrageous logic.

Many states don't allow felons to own firearms, but allow them to be free.

Knowing what I know about Biker, I'm almost certain that his answer to "should a six-year-old be allowed to own a firearm?" is a resounding Yes.

Also worth noting, I know a lot of jurisdictions where felons are routinely denied the privilege of drinking alcohol, even if their crimes had bugger-all to do with booze.

This is why I rightfully consider you a know- nothing fuckhead.

[The Architect Of Fate]

This is why I rightfully consider you a know- nothing fuckhead.

So no argument only an impotent display of rage.

[Spongebob]

Most conservative people tend to have this opinion that people guilty of crimes deserve extreme and never ending punishment. I believe some crimes justify this sort of punishment, but most do not. And when serious mental disorders are involved, such as schizophrenia in Hinkley's case, I believe it makes complete sense to make exceptions. If properly treated, these mental issues can be managed and the majority of people with these conditions are not a danger to the public.

I don't expect to change someone's mind, though in most cases it seems like a personal connection would be the driver for such a determined opinion. I can't say why someone would have such a strong opinion in a case where there's no personal connection. At any rate, our justice system doesn't agree with him. But this is just one case and our justice system is so flawed and corrupt that none of us should feel good about its overall effectiveness.

[Pat Mustard]

Look at all the damage Hinkley would have prevented had he succeeded. Ordinary people don't have the malevolent influence on their country that Reagan did in the eight years his regime held the White House.

Well, that's one way to look at it.

---

My take is that the president is a much more high profile person who attracts a lot more scrutiny and hatred from the general populace, and with mental cases, maybe even more so. The office of president carries a lot of responsibilities that most people in the rest of the population don't. I don't mean to sound dismissive with this, but replacing a duly elected president isn't as easy as replacing yet another citizen who has none of the president's responsibilities, or experiences. We've been recently subjected to an anomalous case where a president getting shot and killed would have most likely been a positive result for the world.

I disagree about the replacement part.  The POTUS has a built in backup.  In most cases it wouldn't change much if the Pres left and the VP took over for a few years.  Trump's case is probably the biggest exception in that opinion.

Sorry for missing this one until now. But in response, we laud Georg Elser.

[brewer]

Squeaky might want a date. Go on and tap that Johnny!