So, instead of spooning Ronny the attention he so so craves, can we get back to the thread topic? Looks like 3 dead, including an officer, and 9 wounded. Robert Dear, age 57. Motive still unclear. Another face of domestic terrorism: What a winner. And another embarrassment for neck beards everywhere.
It's clear that this guy is a nut case. It's not clear if it was voices in his head and the location of this was random or if the Planned Parenthood office was a target. In either case, this guy is clearly mentally unstable. I don't have any medical training or insight to know this. I only know that being mentally unstable is what it takes to be able to do this...to be able to walk up to people you don't know in a town more than 1000 miles from your home and shoot them. I maybe on the left but I don't WANT to believe that this is another christian attack on an abortion clinic. I want people on the right to see that we're making this entirely too easy for people who should not have access to weapons be able to terrorize and murder innocent people.
It's all terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic. We are currently at war with Islamic terrorists. I don't get why that is so difficult for people to swallow. The vast majority of Muslims are good and are likely, and should be, offended and ashamed of jihadists. After all, they are good peaceful Muslims and don't wish any violence upon people. But there is still the fact that these violent Muslims are expressing the will of God as spoken to Muhammad via Gabriel. It was a different era. And the vast majority of Muslims no longer take those violent surahs regarding jihad literal. In fact, many Muslims don't even understand all of the Qur'an. I've only been to a Mosque once, as part of an extra-curricular for a class in college (majored in Middle Eastern Studies and studied Arabic), but I don't think they read the Qur'an in English. There is a lot of repetition of surahs, people learn to recite the Qur'anic verses, they probably take some kind of class akin to CCE for Catholics, but many don't speak Arabic or understand the fushah (ultra formal) dialect. So they learn the interpretation, but not always the literal translations. Historical context is paramount. Anyways, I don't get why it's so difficult and shameful to talk about and explain this to people on both the right and left. Muslims should be ashamed, just like Christians should be ashamed when people use the Bible to espouse hate and violence. The difference is, the New Testament doesn't have any commands, figuratively or literally to my knowledge, of violence. Nonetheless, there is an equal amount of violence in the Old Testament to the Qur'an (if not more really) and people have used it to inflict evil before. I recognize this, I think everyone should recognize this. So when we have a bunch of Christians attacking the world using terrorism as a main tactic, we will label them Christian terrorists, and we will turn our full attention to them. In the meantime, we have a very real problem with militant Islamic extremists and I reject any demands to label it differently. If we can't identify it, we can't solve it.
I agree. And I think everyone would agree that we don't want mentally unstable people, but, and this is an honest question, what should we legally constitute as mentally unfit to own a firearm? Will we require people to go through a rigorous mental evaluation prior to purchasing a weapon? Depression? Previous intake of psychotropic drugs? Would we require any such burden for any other constitutional right? I'm not a gun nut, I don't currently own a weapon. But I recognize that this is a slippery slope. That doesn't mean we should give up on it, I just think we need to be cautious and seriously consider the unintended consequences of any infringement on our constitutional rights. So back to the question, what constitutes mentally unfit to possess/purchase a firearm?
I don't have an answer for you. There is a line but I honestly don't know what it is. I just know there isn't one now...or the one that does exist clearly isn't doing well enough because this keeps happening at an alarming rate.
Legitimately curious if you think this is so reactionary/uneducated/unreasonable as to not warrant a response, or if you just missed it. I'm guessing that I'm probably not as well-versed on the subject as you, certainly not as well-versed as Casey/Bandwagoner. Is there something there I seriously need to be re-thinking?
That's the problem really. I think just about everyone would agree that there should be a line, but who determines it? How would it be enforced? Would it actually make a difference? Would that system be abused? Should other rights be removed due to mental illness or mental instability? Personally I think that anyone living in a "free" nation will have to deal with at least some risk of death or serious bodily injury if others REALLY want to hurt or kill people. It's just part of life.
Are you suggesting that EVERYONE who purchases a firearm should have to get a FFL? If so, that's excessive. As to the mental health restrictions, I'd be fine with them, but should those people also lose other constitutionally guaranteed rights as well as the right to keep and bear arms? Would you bar those people from voting for example? As to the gun buy back, I don't think that would do any good whatsoever.
. . . and was somehow able to be taken alive meanwhile a 12 yr old with a toy gun is shot within 45 seconds of the cops arrival yea. . it matters Rocket River
. .. the good ole LONE WOLF CRAZY MAN If he were Muslim he'd be a Terrorist and an example of how ALL OF THEM ARE Rocket River
The guy barricaded himself inside a building with bullet proof glass with hostages...then surrendered. If the guy was out in the open, he'd have been shot just the same....and you know it.
Is that what happened? If the guy was targeting a Planned Parenthood for political reasons then it's 100% terrorism. Now I don't think we know that for a fact yet, but it sounds like that was likely his motivation.
So if he was targeting the Planned Parenthood clinic for political/religious reasons, then why didn't he go after the PP staff and the people who perform abortions there, as one would expect if that was his motive? There was in fact nobody on staff at PP that was injured or killed by this guy.
I'd be fine with making an exception for transfer of ownership between family members (with perhaps strict penalties for knowingly doing so to family members who would otherwise be unable to obtain one, not sure what laws are in place regarding that), but yes, I otherwise think all sales should be subject to the background checks and mental health screening processes required to buy a firearm from an FFL dealer. Which is why I'd also be in favor of gun buy-backs; if you want to sell a gun privately, and don't want to get an FF license, sell it to the government. Nah. Just from buying and owning weapons that are specifically designed to kill people. And look, society had a severely limited understanding of mental illness when the Bill of Rights was drafted and ratified. As our friend bigtexxx reminds us with all of his posts, “The measure of intelligence is the ability to change.” We need to keep that in mind and consider historical context when dealing with the Constitution, IMO.
Well I don't know for a fact yet that his intentions were to target Planned Parenthood, I just said that it seems likely. If it turns out that he was just a nut then that'll change things. Fair enough. I usually err on the side of civil liberties vs perceived security, but I can understand your position.
