but the man was drunk according to his wife. Though she doesn’t attribute it to this outburst.

Yeah sure, had nothing to do with it.

I must admit, I didn’t click through. egg on my face. I haven’t read the rest of the thread yet but I suspect that my point may have been missed.

Fighton03 on November 17, 2010 at 7:44 PM

Before wiping too furiously, a local story reported that Cowan also owned two handguns, which a daughter had removed from the house following Cowan’s bipolar diagnosis.

Barnestormer on November 18, 2010 at 12:29 PM

Thanks for the find, but it still doesn’t change the fact that I didn’t click through. However you brought a new point to the discussion and something I didn’t consider, namely that he purchased his weapons prior to his diagnosis.

I’ve been pleased to come across some interesting, intelligent posters lately. You’re one of them.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 7:25 PM

I thought I might be growing on you. For what it’s worth, that’s mutual. You’ve been significantly more respectful of others here in the last few months, and it was very classy of you to post congrats on the election results.

Had he been barred from purchasing firearms, one of my friends (and 31 other people) would have been alive today. I might not have spent 2 years dealing with survivor’s guilt (I was 1 building away) and horrible nightmares/anxiety issues.

I’m so sorry. I can’t even imagine what that was like. I realize it’s still possible that he could have gotten one illegally, but I’d think in general that the mentally unstable are less likely to be able to do so.

But yes although I am a strong 2nd Amendment believer I also believe that refusal to be treated for your diagnosed mental disease/disorders or the diagnosis of a SEVERE mental disorder such as the schizophrenia you describe should disqualify you from that right.

SgtSVJones on November 17, 2010 at 6:59 PM

My feeling is really just that if you’re so mentally unstable that it’s legal to have you locked up without your consent and without charging you for a crime, then you’re so mentally unstable that you need a doctor’s note to buy a steak knife.

I just don’t believe that it should be easier to lock someone up without their consent than to prevent them from purchasing a weapon.

If someone wants to argue that we shouldn’t be able to lock them up unless they’ve actually harmed one, I can see that point.

I must admit, I didn’t click through. egg on my face. I haven’t read the rest of the thread yet but I suspect that my point may have been missed.

Fighton03 on November 17, 2010 at 7:44 PM

Before wiping too furiously, a local story reported that Cowan also owned two handguns, which a daughter had removed from the house following Cowan’s bipolar diagnosis.

Ha, yeah they do. Scalia gave this completely twisted argument as to why the “prefatory clause” doesn’t “limit” the following clause.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 5:16 PM

Scalia is/was correct – link

Really, what is your evidence that the prefatory clause disqualifies an individual right to own a firearm? Are you saying that the constitution guarantees the rights of assembly, speech, religion, the press and to petition, and according to Roe v. Wade a right to privacy; but we don’t have a federal right to defend our life and property with a firearm, unless we join a militia?

And I’m an electrician who pointed out that you didn’t read the story or have a clue what you were talking about and backed it up with the proof by ACTUAL reference to the Wisconsin gun laws.

You’re right, I didn’t read the story. I got in a discussion with MC and Esthier about gun control laws generally. No one gives a sh*t about the specifics about Wisconsin gun laws except for you, apparently.

If your in law school, you fail, as you didn’t do the bear minimum to support your claim.

DSchoen on November 18, 2010 at 4:01 AM

What claim? You’re freaking out over nothing.

haha, nope. 2L at a T14.
Now, I’d guess you’re a second or third-tier law school graduate who was unable to secure employment after graduation, and is now underemployed in an entirely different field.
crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 7:23 PM

And I’m an electrician who pointed out that you didn’t read the story or have a clue what you were talking about and backed it up with the proof by ACTUAL reference to the Wisconsin gun laws.

If your in law school, you fail, as you didn’t do the bear minimum to support your claim.

I see “public defender” in your future, or not.

In the real world you get the test first then the lesson.

He may have a mental illness, but the man was drunk according to his wife.

-
Well duh…
-

The worst thing is that Bristol isn’t even worth the expended bullet, much less the TV. This is like protesting
Ford Motors by setting your car on fire.

Dark-Star on November 17, 2010 at 10:18 PM

It’s a frickin’ TV show. Is that ever worth a bullet? Or in this case bird shot (I hope). That’s the main reason I didn’t bother to click through and read the rest of the story.

It’s a TV show for Christ’s sake!!

SgtSVJones on November 17, 2010 at 10:44 PM

From what I recall, it didn’t even require that. There was enough of a record in the system that his application to purchase should have been rejected.

But that was the point of my original post. That gun control laws will fail, and a ‘reasonable person’ should not place faith in them.

From what I read about Tech was that Cho’s purchase should have been declined but someone dropped the ball.

Fighton03 on November 17, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Yea the someone who dropped the ball was the “special magistrate” who offered Cho the choice of voluntary commitment after finding that he was a danger to himself & others instead of immediately committing him involuntarily.

Essentially he said to Cho” “I know you’re dangerous, but if you swear to me that you’ll seek treatment I’ll take your word for it.” So Cho says “Of course your Honor you have my word.” Doesn’t do it anyway and no followup is made then a little less than 12 months later he shoots up Tech.

Authorities say he has bipolar liberalism disorder.

That’s more like it.

Gads, he’s just a typical drunk with a gun. They always are raging at their TV’s over something.

AnninCA on November 17, 2010 at 10:09 PM

The worst thing is that Bristol isn’t even worth the expended bullet, much less the TV. This is like protesting
Ford Motors by setting your car on fire.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 9:32 PM

Lol! You got it.

Honestly I’m guessing upenn or cornell. You’d have told us if it was Harvard or Yale. :)

alwaysfiredup on November 17, 2010 at 9:26 PM

Meh. I’ve never actually said it’s an Ivy. You guessed that yourself.

I think the only things I’ve admitted on HA are that it’s a T14, and that it’s not Gtown or Cornell. And I think that’s an appropriate degree of specificity, in that it protects my anonymity while still giving you an idea of the level of school I go to. I’d really prefer we just leave it at that.

Brown, obviously.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 9:19 PM

Honestly I’m guessing upenn or cornell. You’d have told us if it was Harvard or Yale. :)

haha, nope. 2L at a T14.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 7:23 PM

Princeton? :)

alwaysfiredup on November 17, 2010 at 9:15 PM

Brown, obviously.