Does he have to wear an ankle monitor or can he just come and go as he pleases?

No. He's required to carry a GPS-enabled cellphone whenever he's away from his mother's home.

nopers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No. He's required to carry a GPS-enabled
> cellphone whenever he's away from his mother's
> home.

Cool.

And he can't own a gun that holds more than 10 rounds in a single clip. Poor bastard.

Do you think it would be ok if I told him that Hillary and Jodie Foster are having a thing? I understand Jodie is a big Hillary fan and he may be a bit behind on the news.

Jodie foster is 53 now. Still not too shabby...

http://www.biography.com/people/jodie-foster-9299556

WTF is going to happen to this crazy dude when his mother dies???

Come on, I mean he is 61 years old, his mother must be in her 80's, how is she supposed to keep up with her assign son?

Is his father even still alive?

Who is going to look out after this whack job for the next 20-30 years?

I don't know but the Morenos must have some plan for when they die ... What'll happen to our baby?

Personally I don't give a rat's ass.

Or maybe Eesh and his daddy have a plan?

HEY! Mo can take care of both of them! I see a horror movie outta that!

The Washington post could give him a job. I hear that he already knows where the presd box is on official Whitehouse press events.

I hope Jody Foster has tight security around her place.

and for good measure Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And he can't own a gun that holds more than 10
> rounds in a single clip. Poor bastard.


He can't own any gun as he is a prohibited person under the law.

4uM7v Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WTF is going to happen to this crazy dude when his
> mother dies???
>
> Come on, I mean he is 61 years old, his mother
> must be in her 80's, how is she supposed to keep
> up with her assign son?
>
> Is his father even still alive?
>
> Who is going to look out after this whack job for
> the next 20-30 years?



Maybe share an apartment with William Moreno. They kind of have a lot more in common then one might think.

uyhb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He can't own any gun as he is a prohibited person
> under the law.

What? The gun nuts here aren't going to go off on how this violates their precious Second Amendment rights??

John Hinckley forfeited his second amendment rights when he abused that right harming innocent people using a handgun to further his own agenda. I know of no gun owners that I associate with that don't feel the same way. And yet, liberals set him free, not people who happen to exercise more than the three amendments that liberals happen to use.  He's a good boy who just needs love and understanding. I'm sure he'll continue to find safe haven in liberal land. So don't blame us.

^^^^
Best answer to the libtard troll.

I'm a reenactor. I have access to a musket.
Attachments:

idiots abound Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you think it would be ok if I told him that
> Hillary and Jodie Foster are having a thing? I
> understand Jodie is a big Hillary fan and he may
> be a bit behind on the news.

Let's let him get another shot.

As a nutcase violent liberal, he'd make a fine democrat politician. He has the street cred that libs prefer.

His mother has enough assets to keep him in a decent livable lifestyle the rest of his life.. I'm not saying extravagant. He has had more then enough food in prison laced with dick reducing drugs to keep him at bay for life.. His mother def loves him and will not forsake him.. I have seen much much worse. Leave him be..If he gets "Weirded Out" the feds will slap him away again.. for life.. But Hell.. there plenty of people here on FXU that are already "Weirded Out" Like Vienna Guy..and others..and some that live close to my loved ones too.

DAJAX.. In Touch With Reality..At "Least For Now" .. LOL.

Srsly? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> uyhb Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > He can't own any gun as he is a prohibited
> person
> > under the law.
>
> What? The gun nuts here aren't going to go off on
> how this violates their precious Second Amendment
> rights??

Why do you hate freedom so much? And no, no gun owner is going to make such a ridiculous statement. As noted, Mr. Hinckley forfeited his gun rights when he was deemed a prohibited person by a court of competent jurisdiction.

What you might want to ask is why have criminal prosecutions for firearm related offenses dropped precipitously under President Obama? Also, why is President Obama commuting the sentences of those convicted of firearm related offenses? Both of those facts indicate that the talk on the left about gun violence is just that - talk. Their only interest is restricting the rights of law abiding citizens while doing nothing to criminally prosecute or continue the incarceration of those convicted of firearms related crimes.

Did you get all that?

But the Amendment reads:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Any time reasonable gun control is proposed, y'all go bonkers quoting that.

But it's OK in this case?

Seems a tad bit inconsistent, no?

Didn't his actions paralyze someone for life?

EnXD7 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Didn't his actions paralyze someone for life?

Sure. Not exactly a secret. Not sure how to ask this without sounding aggressive, but I really mean it as a straight question: what's your point?

Yes. Hinckley paralyzed James Brady with a shot to the head. He almost killed President Reagan who was also shot. In fact, Brady died in 2014 because of that gunshot wound. So he is a murderer. He's too crazy to be tried, but ok to be back into society. Nice perk if you can get it. Mr. Brady wasn't as fortunate.

Whats really sad is that he'd be a better president than Hillary will.

Srsly? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But the Amendment reads:
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
> security of a free State, the right of the people
> to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
>
> Any time reasonable gun control is proposed, y'all
> go bonkers quoting that.

You use the word reasonable to describe activity that law abiding individuals engage in every single day. You now wish to make them criminals for simply owning a product that appears on some arbitrary list thought up by Josh Sugarmann.

> But it's OK in this case?

It is apples and oranges. In your so-called "reasonable" gun control, you are attempting to criminalize certain products and activities that law abiding gun owners engage in every single day. In this case, you are prohibiting an individual who has been prohibited under the law based on his previous actions.

Your comparison is way off base.

>
> Seems a tad bit inconsistent, no?

Not at all. See above.

He will get some girlfriend who wants to be associated with fame and a blue blood ( weren't they? ) family. She will give interviews and arrange for photographers to happen to run into them on a day her hair looks nice.
She will take care of him but will be slightly dominating and treat him like an infant. He will be rewarded with sex once every 3 months for good behavior.