good find, and good point.

Doesn't quite work that way. The federal law doesn't bar anyone with a "history of mental illness". They must have been adjudicated as "mentally defective" or as a "danger to self or others" by a court or other lawful authority, pursuant to some sort of hearing and subsequently confined by order of the same court or lawful authority. It sounds like this guy was placed in whatever institution he was in by his parents, making this, unless we know more about it, something along the lines of a voluntary commitment or treatment.

The Cho case is another story. He was ordered by a court.

it is very sad that the gun manufacturers and dealers can provide guns that fire up to 30 rounds of ammo. total insantity.

I wonder if Larry Hincker, a spokesman for Virginia Tech, site of one of the worst mass killings in history, loses any sleep over his comments.



From an article shortly after the Virginia Tech Murders
"Now here's something that I have yet to see reported in the mainstream media. Earlier this year the Virginia General Assembly failed to act on House Bill 1572. The citizens of Virginia are permitted to carry concealed weapons if they get a proper permit from the state government --- unless you are on a college campus. This bill would have allowed college students and employees to carry handguns on campus --- with appropriate permits, of course. It died in subcommittee. After the bill was thrown out up steps Larry Hincker, a spokesman for Virginia Tech, the site of today's carnage, who says "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.""

Is "Bleetstein" a handle? I think using the sound made by a sheep as a username is nearly too ironic for this discussion. M- I could not make sense of your post, and I don't want to take the time to try. Even after re-reading your post several times, I don't know what you're talking about, and I'm not sure you do, either. If you'll define 'insantity', maybe that willl help me put some sense into the rest of your post.

If you think the police are going to protect you, you're mistaken; they willl NOT, unless you are an unbelieveably lucky person and all the stars line up just right. You have bought the big lie, and I hope you wise up before it brings you to great sadness.

Google "police" AND "affirmative duty to protect". You'll see a lot of Second Amendment sites listed, and I hope you won't let prejudice or fear keep you from visiting them. Pay particular attention to "Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)", the case that laid out the rules for who can and cannot expect police protection.

Read the FACTS of the case in the request for certiorari (the written pleading that gets your case in front of the Supreme Court.) I hope it scares the S*** out of you

Tom-

I'm not sure Mr. Hincker has lost a minute of sleep over his statement. Professional gumflappers rarely do. He probably doesn't realize that even ONE armed person could have ended Cho's rampage early on and perhaps kept the body count down at least a bit, and that the thought that there might be an armed person in one of those classrooms might have kept it down to one (Cho) or two (Cho plus the girlfriend he killed first).

The NIU shooter must have had even less reason to fear an armed response. Illinois is one of only two states in which there are NO legal concealed carriers of concealed weapons. I call it a disarmed victim state; that's what it is. Even if you follow all the rules, you can still face a world of hurt and aggravation.

Ask Roderick Pritchett of Chicago.

A legal system failed the people. Two individuals obtained weapons illegally. Yet the author attacks industry. What is his agenda?