So the crazy reporter that killed the news crew in Roanoke yesterday bought his gun over a month ago. He purchased it legally, and passed the mandatory background check that everyone who buys a gun in Virginia is required to pass.

What is the problem? He had the right to purchase the gun, and he did it by the rules.

New laws will do nothing to prevent this type of situation.

I am sorry those 2 people died, and the other person was shot.

A Thought Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So the crazy reporter that killed the news crew in
> Roanoke yesterday bought his gun over a month ago.
> He purchased it legally, and passed the mandatory
> background check that everyone who buys a gun in
> Virginia is required to pass.
>
> What is the problem? He had the right to purchase
> the gun, and he did it by the rules.
>
> New laws will do nothing to prevent this type of
> situation.
>
> I am sorry those 2 people died, and the other
> person was shot.

That's stupid.

Yet Terry McAwful says he's tried to pass legislation to make background checks mandatory.

NEWS FLASH: BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE MANDATORY!

Ralph Pootawn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yet Terry McAwful says he's tried to pass
> legislation to make background checks mandatory.
>
> NEWS FLASH: BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE MANDATORY!

Shhhh.... You're not supposed to say things like that.Let's pretend he bought the guns at a gun show. Okay? That way we can keep bullshitting people.

Ralph Pootawn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yet Terry McAwful says he's tried to pass
> legislation to make background checks mandatory.
>
> NEWS FLASH: BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE MANDATORY!


You're a real dumb fuck. Private sale NEWS FLASH only has to be VA resident all other shit is only RECOMMENDED handguns AR-15s, Saiga-12s ans so on. I respect your views but know the law dumb fuck. http://www.vsp.stateVA.US/firearms

Ralph Pootawn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yet Terry McAwful says he's tried to pass
> legislation to make background checks mandatory.
>
> NEWS FLASH: BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE MANDATORY!

^This

Ralph Pootawn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yet Terry McAwful says he's tried to pass
> legislation to make background checks mandatory.
>
> NEWS FLASH: BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE MANDATORY!


Dude, I am against gun control too but the real facts are that any motherfucker can buy a gun from another motherfucker with no problem at all.

New laws should lock up more nuts. They can start with this site.

um wuuttt???? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ralph Pootawn Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yet Terry McAwful says he's tried to pass
> > legislation to make background checks mandatory.
>
> >
> > NEWS FLASH: BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE MANDATORY!
>
>
> Dude, I am against gun control too but the real
> facts are that any motherfucker can buy a gun from
> another motherfucker with no problem at all.


You'll never stop the sale on the black market with additional laws and criminals will just resort to stealing them. Bottom line, only law-abiding citizens choose to follow laws.

Look at the war on drugs over the last 30 years and how successful that has been. You can't buy them, manufacture them, sell them, nothing. However, we have TONS of it coming across our borders and even more being manufacturer here in the US.

Here the distraught father is blabbering on CNN, How the founders had muskets they only could shoot 100 yards. He never heard that they allowed and still do Smooth Bore Cannon, much more power then any pistol or "assault Firearm". And there days on CNN Enough already!

The killers pics are in the New York Daily News tabloid, he was a body builder guy , he would have had no trouble stabbing the pho-tog who's back was to him and then the woman reporter. And everyone knows it

How stupid are these Libs?? Thinking crime stops because there arn't guns involved.

No, not stupid just gun grabbing assholes. Trying to drum up Democrat votes in 16 . Don't give um an inch .

As said more people have already bought a gun cause of this crime..
Attachments:

>How the founders had muskets they only could shoot 100 yards.

Probably more than sufficient to kill someone from less than a dozen yards.

Who gets to decide if someone is a nut or not? All NRA members are nutjobs and should be locked away.

uhUUn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How the founders had muskets they only could
> shoot 100 yards.

Yeah...is dad nuts from this and rambling or is something else going on? What's his point? Flanagan was only feet away from his victims. Looking as if dad has an agenda and is using his daughter's death to campaign. He has run for office before.

yes we can Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ralph Pootawn Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yet Terry McAwful says he's tried to pass
> > legislation to make background checks mandatory.
>
> >
> > NEWS FLASH: BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE MANDATORY!
>
>
> You're a real dumb fuck. Private sale NEWS FLASH
> only has to be VA resident all other shit is only
> RECOMMENDED handguns AR-15s, Saiga-12s ans so on.
> I respect your views but know the law dumb fuck.
> http://www.vsp.stateVA.US/firearms


Nice link, dumb fuck.

>All Democrats and liberals are nutjobs and should be locked away.

Guns should be on the Internet and pulling the trigger only fires a round if the police have approved the target point in real time.

Guns should never be banned. Let the blacks at least kill each other off first.

When Obama disarms his Secret Service guards, then we can talk about gun control. Not a minute before!

Ralph Pootawn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yet Terry McAwful says he's tried to pass
> legislation to make background checks mandatory.
>
> NEWS FLASH: BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE MANDATORY!

no they aren't and shouldn't be - except criminal (meaning breaking and entering) checks

for instance, many who have firearms are "grandfathered" in - because they had guns before any such bullshit laws were written and ...

retro-active laws are ILLEGAL in the USA. try and make one see if i don't find your ass.

cnPD4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ralph Pootawn Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yet Terry McAwful says he's tried to pass
> > legislation to make background checks mandatory.
>
> >
> > NEWS FLASH: BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE MANDATORY!
>
> no they aren't and shouldn't be - except criminal
> (meaning breaking and entering) checks
>
> for instance, many who have firearms are
> "grandfathered" in - because they had guns before
> any such bullshit laws were written and ...
>
> retro-active laws are ILLEGAL in the USA. try and
> make one see if i don't find your ass.


this makes absolutely no sense and you don't know what you're talking about

cnPD4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ralph Pootawn Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yet Terry McAwful says he's tried to pass
> > legislation to make background checks mandatory.
>
> >
> > NEWS FLASH: BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE MANDATORY!
>
> no they aren't and shouldn't be - except criminal
> (meaning breaking and entering) checks
>
> for instance, many who have firearms are
> "grandfathered" in - because they had guns before
> any such bullshit laws were written and ...
>
> retro-active laws are ILLEGAL in the USA. try and
> make one see if i don't find your ass.


You're a fucking idiot and should be euthanized for spreading bullshit lies.

jfgfrg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're a fucking idiot and should be euthanized
> for spreading bullshit lies.


Huh? You're against guns presumably becuase you don't want people killed, but you want this guy to get killed? How does that make any sense at all? Oh, right, you're a liberal.

Dumb Ass Stupid Liberal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jfgfrg Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You're a fucking idiot and should be euthanized
> > for spreading bullshit lies.
>
>
> Huh? You're against guns presumably becuase you
> don't want people killed, but you want this guy to
> get killed? How does that make any sense at all?
> Oh, right, you're a liberal.


Read it again dipshit. I'm a Conservative and was commenting on that dumbass who said "for instance, many who have firearms are "grandfathered" in - because they had guns before any such bullshit laws were written and"

Blame, blame, blame everybody but the savage?
Attachments:

So since this mentally ill person, who had a history of violence, was able to pass the background check you think the system is working?

Clearly this person should of not been sold a gun. People in his work place said he had was so violent that they CLEARED THE BUILDING OF EMPLOYEES when he was fired.

Yet none of this was found out in his gun purchase "background check?"

How about a BETTER BACKGROUND CHECK???? Perhaps legal "complaints filed?"


A Thought Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So the crazy reporter that killed the news crew in
> Roanoke yesterday bought his gun over a month ago.
> He purchased it legally, and passed the mandatory
> background check that everyone who buys a gun in
> Virginia is required to pass.
>
> What is the problem? He had the right to purchase
> the gun, and he did it by the rules.
>
> New laws will do nothing to prevent this type of
> situation.
>
> I am sorry those 2 people died, and the other
> person was shot.

You can't pick and choose what parts of the Bill of Rights YOU want upheld.

No criminal History. That was the finding. Period .

"Legal Complaints filed".. Or I don't like his politics, I don't like his clothes. I don't like what he posted on FFU. I DONT LIKE..


The Real Question IS?? Are you Crazy? ... YES! GUILTY ! Don't you smell a Gun!

Sorry Sucker Its A NO GO Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can't pick and choose what parts of the Bill
> of Rights YOU want upheld.
>
> No criminal History. That was the finding. Period
> .
>
> "Legal Complaints filed".. Or I don't like his
> politics, I don't like his clothes. I don't like
> what he posted on FFU. I DONT LIKE..
>
>
> The Real Question IS?? Are you Crazy? ... YES!
> GUILTY ! Don't you smell a Gun!

And your solutions is???

Let me guess... just let the current system that CLEARLY doesn't work continue as is. Continue to let the mentally ill get guns and go on shooting sprees in VA.

Do you think this guy should of passed the VA background check system????

According to the documents, Cho indicated in the second phone conversation that his symptoms of depression and anxiety had persisted. He also said that he was having trouble concentrating.

That counselor's notes indicate that Cho said that "he did not want to come in at this time," despite his symptoms.

Another shooter who CLEARLY should of NOT of PASSSED the VA background check. Christ! This guy was under MENTAL observations and still passed VA background checks?
Attachments:

Your Solution? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> And your solutions is???
>
> Let me guess... just let the current system that
> CLEARLY doesn't work continue as is. Continue to
> let the mentally ill get guns and go on shooting
> sprees in VA.


And your solution is?

We could very easily incorporate mental health event-type records into the background checks but the ACLU and mental health advocacy groups have opposed that on the basis of medical privacy. It also would require changes to other related laws which prohibit doing so for such reasons. Which is why it's now limited to actual legal adjudications since it then becomes a matter of public record.

Beyond that, you can't legislate against crazy or determined. No matter what you do, someone intent on killing people will find a way to do it. And most likely they'll be successful.

I'm sure ALL Virginians would support checking mental health records as part of a VA gun purchase background check.

Mental Health Records Check Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sure ALL Virginians would support checking
> mental health records as part of a VA gun purchase
> background check.


Well, rather than blabbering nonsense political talking points about the NRA as is the usual approach, then you're going to have to convince groups like the ACLU not to sue (again) to stop it, convince the mental health community that it won't cause discrimination against people seeking treatment or affect those who might seek treatment as a result, and have state and Federal legislatures change other medical privacy laws to legally permit it.

You're going to be busy. Get to work.

^ All so true, don't hold thy breath waiting..as said.

Now Some Blabber..for a Gun Grabber.

Cho Sung Hui .. What ever his name was did have mental issues, and it was not caught on the background check and that's a good question why not. He was under care. But there are rules and laws are there not, and he was not disqualified as he had not been involuntary committed from what I've heard.

The guy at Smith Mt Lake was not under care, nor would he have been. Many people would say a person who is Gay has mental issues. The majority of the World would agree. But does that mean they will go off killing people? No.

Just because the guy was pissed of after getting fired two years prior he should never be allowed to buy a gun?? He sulked and was silent about his rage. He was simply very pissed off. And that's a common human trait.
You want to take guns away from pissed off people, be prepared to disarm many police. But are they going to just kill someone? No. Right now there's lots of pissed off people in this country. And the President is doing his part to create as many of them as possible instead of acting like a leader and helping the country to heal from all the hate going round to aid Democrats in 2016. Black vs Whites, Whites vs Blacks, Gun haters vs Gun owners, Libs vs Conservatives. Illegals vs Everybody like it or not. Them vs Them on and on.

But guess what. Seeing people everyday. I don't see anyone that's so bad. I do know however how a bad situation can happen and how quick it can be in a safe normal setting.

And yes someone determined to kill will find a way. Knife, club, heavy object, automobile, the human mind can be very cunning. 315 million in this country right now. And illegals coming in all the time and yes there are criminals in there midst. Worry about that. Scared?? You best get a CCW and carry a gun your self. And all the gun laws will not change it. Too many people too many ways for pissed off people to kill you.

I go about my business without fear. Now and then I have wished I had a pistol in my pocket. Stay out of scary places as much as you can Stay away from scary people.as much as you can.....BOOOO! LOL.. Give people some room and don't disrespect them.

The problem is that the shooters these days clearly should of been stopped from buying guns. The VA background check didn't work.

People aren't saying "Never would I of every expected this person to do something like this mass shooting."

It's the opposite. People were ALL saying "We completely expected this person to do something like this."

Yet, VA background checks completely didn't figure that out.

Definitely mental health records need to be examined closer as a start.

Mental Health Checks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem is that the shooters these days
> clearly should of been stopped from buying guns.
> The VA background check didn't work.
>
> People aren't saying "Never would I of every
> expected this person to do something like this
> mass shooting."
>
> It's the opposite. People were ALL saying "We
> completely expected this person to do something
> like this."
>
> Yet, VA background checks completely didn't figure
> that out.
>
> Definitely mental health records need to be
> examined closer as a start.


Once again, you can't legislate against crazy, criminal, or determined. What do you think might be included in a background check that would have prevented this case? Without causing every privacy advocacy group out there to sue to stop it.

Here, let me cut to the chase... Background checks basically are the equivalent of TSA pat-downs. They are there as a result of people saying "We have to DO SOMETHING!" So that's what we do because it's something that we can do, not because it's necessarily an effective solution. Whether they actually work or not to prevent what they're intended to stop is an entirely separate and mostly non-correlated matter.

Gun laws only limit honest, law-abiding, non-crazy people who abide by them. They don't prevent people from getting or using guns much at all. They do work to some extent on the back-end prosecution. But then we don't prosecute such cases other than in trivial numbers and with lax penalties. We could enforce more and make the penalties greater but then you're going to have to start throwing even more young black men in jail for longer sentences, so you'll have the #blacklivesmatter-types and similar groups all over your ass if try to.

Very simple, add mental health records checks to the VA background process.

Simple Fix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Very simple, add mental health records checks to
> the VA background process.


No, it's not very simple. Easy to say but much more complicated to actually do. What "mental health records" specifically? Mental health records already are included to the extent that is permitted by medical privacy laws.

If you want to change what's included beyond that, then you're going to have to talk to the mental health community, privacy/civil liberties advocates, and legislators to convince them to change medical records and related privacy laws, not gun-related laws. Then you're going to have to determine what level of mental health interaction merits some exclusion of rights and all of the legal details around that. Which is why it hasn't been done already.

Reality calling.. It's for you Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Simple Fix Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Very simple, add mental health records checks
> to
> > the VA background process.
>
>
> No, it's not very simple. Easy to say but much
> more complicated to actually do. What "mental
> health records" specifically? Mental health
> records already are included to the extent that is
> permitted by medical privacy laws.
>
> If you want to change what's included beyond that,
> then you're going to have to talk to the mental
> health community, privacy/civil liberties
> advocates, and legislators to convince them to
> change medical records and related privacy laws,
> not gun-related laws. Then you're going to have
> to determine what level of mental health
> interaction merits some exclusion of rights and
> all of the legal details around that. Which is
> why it hasn't been done already.

Yes, willing to work out the details of what mental records need to be included.

I'm glad you agree it's a start pointing.

^^ No way in hell am I going to any shrink. LOL...Loose My Gat! No Way Jose!

This will work only for those that are way far out, But The Ruby Red Satillite guy and Jared whats his name that shot Gabby Giffords and killed others that day were just that, Insane and they got guns, so go for it.

"Jimmy The Greek" Sez odds are 1000 to one it will be "Shot Down" . Dems will not like this at all..there all crazy.." Voted For Obama Did You?? LOL! Its FFU People..! Good Luck!

Nobody is saying a gun purchaser needs to get a mental evaluation. Just simply that a more detailed check of existing mental records should be available and reviewed.

I'm all for allowing people to buy guns. We just need to stop "crazy homicidal people" like Cho from easy access to guns.

The fact that Cho passed a background check is INSANE and should outrage valid gun owners.

Gun Pro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nobody is saying a gun purchaser needs to get a
> mental evaluation. Just simply that a more
> detailed check of existing mental records should
> be available and reviewed.
>
> I'm all for allowing people to buy guns. We just
> need to stop "crazy homicidal people" like Cho
> from easy access to guns.
>
> The fact that Cho passed a background check is
> INSANE and should outrage valid gun owners.


Which means that when someone is involved with some form of mental health evaluation that needs to be recorded and reported to a database that then is made available for a public records search. Where are you going to draw the line on that?

Cho wasn't deemed to be homicidal. People who are homicidal or otherwise an imminent danger to themselves or others already are required to be reported. I'm not even sure that he was thought to be a danger. So you're going to have to go with a much larger potential group than that. And you're going to have to justify removing their rights without any sort of due process.

Even in the event that you do or can do that, it also means that a person who may have some problems may not seek treatment if they know that they may lose their ability to own a gun and/or however else that might affect them.

This isn't any new territory. It's all been hashed through many times in the past. It's easy to say what should have happened in hindsight. Not nearly as easy to prevent such things on the front end. Unless maybe you want to impose what amounts to a complete surveillance state which probably wouldn't even be practical then. And you still have all of the people who aren't crazy killing people which is the vast majority not the trivial few nut cases.

6HJVe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gun Pro Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Nobody is saying a gun purchaser needs to get a
> > mental evaluation. Just simply that a more
> > detailed check of existing mental records
> should
> > be available and reviewed.
> >
> > I'm all for allowing people to buy guns. We
> just
> > need to stop "crazy homicidal people" like Cho
> > from easy access to guns.
> >
> > The fact that Cho passed a background check is
> > INSANE and should outrage valid gun owners.
>
>
> Which means that when someone is involved with
> some form of mental health evaluation that needs
> to be recorded and reported to a database that
> then is made available for a public records
> search. Where are you going to draw the line on
> that?

The database doesn't have to be public. Medical records are not public to start with but can be released for review. A persons credit rating is not public but can be checked when needed when authorized. The same deal for gun purchase mental health records.

You are also in the NCI database but you can't see those records without a court order. That database gets checked currently in background checks.

Just a simple database with a soc sec number and a simple field. "Confirmed homicidal Tendencies: Yes" That will work for me.

Simple Fix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 6HJVe Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gun Pro Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Nobody is saying a gun purchaser needs to get
> a
> > > mental evaluation. Just simply that a more
> > > detailed check of existing mental records
> > should
> > > be available and reviewed.
> > >
> > > I'm all for allowing people to buy guns. We
> > just
> > > need to stop "crazy homicidal people" like
> Cho
> > > from easy access to guns.
> > >
> > > The fact that Cho passed a background check
> is
> > > INSANE and should outrage valid gun owners.
> >
> >
> > Which means that when someone is involved with
> > some form of mental health evaluation that
> needs
> > to be recorded and reported to a database that
> > then is made available for a public records
> > search. Where are you going to draw the line
> on
> > that?
>
> The database doesn't have to be public. Medical
> records are not public to start with but can be
> released for review. A persons credit rating is
> not public but can be checked when needed when
> authorized. The same deal for gun purchase mental
> health records.
>
> You are also in the NCI database but you can't see
> those records without a court order. That database
> gets checked currently in background checks.


There's a distinction between public records and records being available to the public. Medical records are not public records. When you put them into a government database, then they become public records even if they are not accessible by the general public. The only things that are in the records check now are public records resulting from actions of the courts or some other authorized administrative action. That will necessarily be the same. You can't just have people arbitrarily adding someone to some database like that without some form of government acceptance/endorsement of what's put in. Which again means that you need a whole set of legal process to go along with it and you need rules and regs as far as what goes in and where lines are drawn. Which is why we end up now with legal adjudications being the benchmark.

Your credit score example is a poor one. Anyone can get that simply by paying for a service. It's a private service run by private companies who create the score and sell your data as a product.

>
> Just a simple database with a soc sec number and a
> simple field. "Confirmed homicidal Tendencies:
> Yes" That will work for me.

Then you're just wasting time and money because you're not going to catch Cho or many if any others. But dammit you'll have done SOMETHING! and politicians can pat themselves on the backs (again). Even if it really does nothing.