Air Force Error Allowed Texas Gunman to Buy Weapons
SUTHERLAND SPRINGS, Tex. — A day after a gunman massacred parishioners in a small Texas church, the Air Force admitted on Monday that it had failed to enter the man’s domestic violence court-martial into a federal database that could have blocked him from buying the rifle he used to kill 26 people.
Under federal law, the conviction of the gunman, Devin P. Kelley, for domestic assault on his wife and toddler stepson — he had cracked the child’s skull — should have stopped Mr. Kelley from legally purchasing the military-style rifle and three other guns he acquired in the last four years.
“The Air Force has launched a review of how the service handled the criminal records of former Airman Devin P. Kelley following his 2012 domestic violence conviction,” the Air Force said in a statement.
The statement said Heather Wilson, the Air Force secretary, and Gen. David Goldfein, the Air Force chief of staff, had ordered the Air Force inspector general to “conduct a complete review of the Kelley case.”
The Air Force also said it was looking into whether other convictions had been improperly left unreported to the federal database for firearms background checks.
New details of the killings also emerged on Monday, including a possible motive. Law enforcement officials said Mr. Kelley may have been driven by anger toward his estranged wife’s family, the final chapter in a life full of domestic rage. In addition to his court-martial, in which his previous wife was the victim, he had been investigated on a rape complaint, though he was not charged and his relationship to the woman in the complaint was unclear.
Read more:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/us/texas-shooting-church.html
Tags
Who is online
87 visitors
So it would seem that this dumbass wasn't supposed to be able to buy his weapons. As I had opined on another article.
And before you start in on "he probably bought it from a private seller"...no. He purchased it from a sporting goods store. Had the Air Force filled the appropriate paperwork, he would have been denied.
It's illegal to cross the border as well. Laws aren't worth a crap without enforcement of them. I believe this POS would have gotten a gun no matter what. He lied on his application to obtain a gun anyway in addition to everything else. He didn't tell them he got kicked out of the Air Force and got a discharge that wasn't Honorable. I don't know what he got. I'm sure one of you know. May have been a Dishonorable discharge. He should have fracturing his son's skull.
I believe he got a Bad Conduct Discharge. Dishonorable Discharge disqualifies someone from purchasing a firearm, a BCD by itself does not.
Correct. The BC itself was not disqualifying. However, the BC was a result of his conviction in a Court Martial for Domestic Violence, for which he was incarcerated for one year. Both of those issues, Domestic Violence conviction, and serving more than one year for a felony are disqualifying.
The domestic violence conviction means he falls under the Lautenberg Act . By law he is not permitted to own or possess any kind of firearm. Now as Sixpick pointed out, he never disclosed a felony conviction (Courts Martial are felony convictions). So it is safe to say he was going to get a weapon by any means.
After 26 people were dead and many more were injured.
The person who shot the shooter and caused him to drop his weapon responded while the shots were being fired in the church. The shooter had multiple weapons and there was no way of knowing how many more churches he would target.
The NRA certified instructor didn't take time to put shoes on because time was critical. Why is that important? In TX everything there wants to bite, stick or sting. Been there and felt that.
Why would you diminish the actions of a person who willingly ran to a threat instead of away from it?
You obviously don't watch anything but, Rightwing Trump TV. The shooter was targeting this church because his ex-wifes mother attended there and, for no other reason.
No, a domestic abuser, trying to take out his delusions on his mother-in-law.
And that has exactly what to do with the good guy with a gun who shot the atheist shooter? Why are you making this personal? What happened when the good samaritans responded isn't about what tv shows I watch.
That is more in response to the people like Hippocrates of Cos who have said that he was somehow a left wing radical who was just targeting the church because he was an Atheist, nothing has been suggested on any of the REAL news to suggest that, in fact it has been said that he targeted this church because his mother-in-law attended it.
As far as the gentlemen who hunted him down and, prevented him from shooting any more people in the church, I praise them for their efforts.
And I have read HOC's responses and you are putting a lot of words in his mouth.
FYI the quick way to run afoul of the mods is to make something personal. Adding snark about what shows I watch does nothing to further the conversation. Snark kills conversation. Resisting the urge to go snarky was an adjustment I had to make when I came here from NV. Old habits are hard to break.
From HOC's fingers.
No proof in the news that he was an Atheist,
No proof of any of this.
There is.
From the article you posted.
The second paragraph I added because of the fact that I would have a sinking feeling if I found out that one of my old friends did the same things Kelley did. Many people change their beliefs over time, it seems like this guy had more going wrong in his mind than just atheism.
There's proof that he had a mass-murder-rifle. Everything else is incidental.
It doesn't matter whether the shooter is left, right, fundie, or atheist. If he doesn't have a mass-murder-rifle, there won't be a mass murder.
That is the only significant thing.
I'm not positive, but I thought I heard the fellow, Stephen Willeford, say he and the other fellow went up to the vehicle and told the POS to get out. If the POS had 3 gun shot wounds supposedly from Willeford and one more the report says, it wouldn't surprise me if Willeford was the one who killed him. He lost blood and eventually lost control of his vehicle and probably died from the wounds from Willeford's gun and never shot himself. I just can't imagine the POS taking his own life. Willeford was adamant about not wanting to be a "Hero". I think the report is honoring his wishes. Conspiracy yes, but based on knowledge I have about these type of things, I would put my money on that. I think they don't care what the report says. They're just happy the POS is finally dead and are looking out for Willeford and his wishes. Wouldn't you?
Exactly. BTW, I like the way you have named the rifle.
No copyright! Feel free to use it.
It been reported that at one point that he taught bible studies. Whether he was an antsiest, Christian, or whatever. None of it matters, he was a out and out crazy.
Let's stop with the damn finger pointing and deal with the problem...The AF didn't report his record/conviction, he escaped a mental facility, he made multiple threats, he was ABLE to purchase 4 rifles, he was rejected for a CC permit in Texas...There are a lot of questions that need to be answered and I doubt if any of them are about his religious or non religious beliefs.
From your link:
Thanx.
Agreed.
E.A Let them be.. It is " Loose talk that hangs ... " Or the NAVY one " Loose Lips ... " It may well lead to a Group mentality that comes all the way from NV and from there to NT, keep an eye on them!
I agree, K... But let's not deal with an incidental problem. Regardless of any database... no civilian needs a mass-murder-rifle. The problem isn't databases. It is mass-murder-rifles.
Hi, Love!
You keep forgetting that I am a US Army combat veteran.
I don't know Galien. Was he taking out his hate for his mother-n-law when he was beating his dog on the head and charged for animal cruelty or when he crushed the the skull of the 8 month old child? From what I've heard a lot of people un befrended him on Facebook. One person said he said religious people were stupid and hated religious people.
Maybe he was trying to get two for one, his ex-mother-n-law and a bunch of religious people at the same time. If he wanted to get his ex-mother-n-law and it didn't have anything to do with hating religious people, all he had to do was go to her house and shoot her. He was a militant atheist who hated religion.
The chief nation of the USSR, the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic, was once considered to be among the “most Christian” nations in the world—a land with a rich, age-old history of churches and monasteries, the wellspring of numerous revered saints and martyrs, with a cherished and abundant legacy of sacred music, iconography and spiritual literature. Yet within less than a year after March 1917, when the last tsar abdicated, a band of militant atheists had seized power; many Russians were looting churches; were mocking religion and religious people unmercifully; were even murdering priests, monks and other believers by the thousands.
I wasn't drafted. I joined.
Bill of Rights. Not Bill of Needs.
Gee, Bf...
You changed your Comment after I posted mine! You needn't have. I wasn't upset at your thinking I served only because I was drafted. .... Well... a little all the same... Your esteem is so-o-o-o important to me, after all...
Why don't you tell me about your own service?
Gee Bruce, you keep insisting.
Are you really saying that mass murderers have a right to keep and bear mass-murder-rifles?
Do you fantasize about battling the gubmint, which wants to take away your mass-murder-rifles? Or are you only defending the rights of mass murderers?
He sure did! This guy is like some of the other shooters. Mentally ill and violent. If we don't deal with these people this will happen again. It's better to target the problem and not get lost in the gun control debate and do nothing.
Can't atheists be mentally ill and go on shooting rampages? The news reports are that he became atheist. Even non Christians can teach Bible school if they choose to do so.
When were you at Bible school? I have helped Bible school many times. It's basically a week of crafts mixed with Bible stories. It's not an in depth study of God's word.
I am and I would!
They lose that right after being convicted maybe you weren’t aware of that.
Oh, that's important!!!
We must preserve the rights of mass murderers to keep and bear mass-murder-rifles... but we may rest assured that they will lose that right while they have killed a bunch of people.
You've made it all well, Dean...
This shooter was also an example of why the CA Gun Restraining Order law needs to be implemented in each state. It is actually a common sense law unlike the "common sense" gun laws that are pushed by anti gun people who can't say what those "common sense" laws are.
It allows for guns to be removed until the court can adjudicate the person with the problem. It has strong false reporting penalties and due process procedures. So many knew this idiot was a problem and was armed but there was no real mechanism to deal with him.
Couple that with ending the "least restrictive environment" approach to treating the small population of the mentally ill that are also violent and many of the nut job shooters would be kept out of society.
What will happen though is nothing. The pols will drag out the same old same old and the issue will make it past the news cycle into obscurity.
Find the things we agree on and act. We all don't want armed violent mentally people. We all want a way to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't. Most of us want to be able to legally own firearms for self defense and sporting purposes.
Stop making it about the gun and make it about the small number of problem people in society. Don't target the gun but the person.
That comment made me to a little research on how many Americans have mental problems. This is what I found.
Those numbers are staggering. Of course not all people suffering from this are capable of what this crazy did, but the overall number of people suffering from some sort of mental illness is unbelievable.
... and mass-murder-rifles are ridiculously easy to acquire...
Yes and the 50.5% who suffer mental disorders and are abusing drugs is really staggering. I believe people who have emotional disorders are more pron to abuse drugs as well.
I'm not getting on you Pot Smokers, although I believe if you have emotional disorders, even pot smoking is detrimental to your mental health.
And so is rat poison and any number of other methods of killing large numbers of people. I say keep the guns out of the hands of killers if possible and keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of killers, wouldn't you agree?
Not nearly as easy to acquire as mass-murder trucks. That's why they're the mass murder weapon of choice around the world (and in New York City).
Tell that to the families of the victims.
When was the last rat-poison-mass-murder?
Your capacity for deflection is
disgustingamazing.Tell that to the families of the victims of mass-murder-rifles.
They are staggering! It's time to evaluate the way we treat mental illness in this country. I wonder what the number is for the mentally ill with violence is. It is going to be much less than those totals.
Someday family practice clinics will have psychologists and psychiatrists as a part of the clinic. Seeing one will be looked at the same way others seeking help at the clinic for a cold are.
The stigma of mental illness is hurting people. It's time for it to end!
100 per cent agreement on that.
I'm telling it to you. So that you understand that your anti-gun fetish is not only pointless, but - as we saw in Texas - can prevent citizens from defending themselves against lunatics.
I have no fear of spiders, snakes or any critter on four or more legs. The one that that I fear is running out of potato chips in the middle of a game. I even have dreams about it. Running out of chips AND dip is enough to make me run to the store and get a years supply.
Terrifying
What!!! boots are debilitating. I wasn't familiar with that particular phobia, but then again I only wear moccasins.
checking with the Cowboy Indian alliance to see if that's really true.
Ahhhh yes, black water medicine. One can't be without that. What do you think the Battle of Coffee Hill was over. Someone hid my black water medicine.
There is no reason for the existence of guns capable of firing multiple rounds in quick succession... other than to kill people.
Thank you for that immaterial and tired comment. And thanks for stopping by.
Immaterial? I don't think so.
It is all your gun-nut excuses that are immaterial. It's simple: if shooters could have no more than two shots, there would be no mass shootings.
All your other bullshit is... immaterial.
So you're saying we don't need these guns?
E.A Bruce, maybe what is needed is an educational seed about " Loading and Dirty Hands " and why that is dangerous, and how when one has an ammunition Magazine, that avoids Gun Damage and safety to the shooter and the Public,,
To be clear: the only civilians who need more than two rounds are mass murderers.
Gee Bob, last time I checked, it was called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.
Your opinion of what someone needs is trumped by that document. Peddle that shit to someone else.
Does the Bill of Right guarantee assault rifles for all?
How many rounds could a murderer fire in 1789?
The only civilians who need more than two rounds are mass murderers.
And, there would be no wars, right? You do realize the reason for machine guns and whatnot is to prevent other nations from being able to put more firepower in the field than we can, correct? Part of the reasoning for the 2nd Amendment is so that the citizens of the country can quickly come to the aid of the country's military when invaded. Remember, after the Revolutionary War the British did invade the USA in the War of 1812.
You're joking, right?
If you want to prepare for an invasion (seriously?????), you should join the National Guard. They have BIG machine guns...
Really, you want to go there? Okay, tell you what Bob. If you want to continue spouting your nonsense under you freedom of speech or press, send it to me by Post written in quill and parchment since that was the technology of the day for speech and press.
I notice that you don't answer the question...
Actually he did but it was subtle.
You're funny!
All those Minutemen with their machine guns!
You're very funny!
Actually the Brown Bess fired four projectiles per shot. Buck and ball was the loading. An experienced musketman could fire five shots per minute that is 20 projectiles per minute. The shooter was there for 10 minutes so that is 200 projectiles.
Of course it had a wicked attached bayonet that turned the rifle into a short spear.
Horse puckey! Semi autos have been in civilian hands for over 100 years. I have one made in 1923 that still functions flawlessly.
One of the most common deer rifles in the woods is a 742 Remington .30-06. I have taken many deer with it. Other than the appearance it functions identically to the ar rifles.
Does a deer hunter need more than two rounds?
E.A Is this simple Point understood?::
4.1.2 Eagle Averro replied to Uncle Bruce @4.1
Or is the Safety of the Shooter irrelevant?
The 2nd Amendment wasn't written to protect hunting.
The only civilians who need more than two rounds are mass murderers.
Bill of RIGHTS, not Bill of Needs.
When was the last time you went hunting and, met up with a herd of deer that had AK-47's with thirty round mags and, bump stocks??
Bill of Rights. Not Bill of Needs. Oh, and it wasn't written for hunting.
When the Bill of Rights was written, all firearms were single-shot. That's ok...
Are you saying that mass-murderers have rights, too?
Buck fever causes a lot of misses.
It isn't about the gun Bob! It's about individuals like the shooter who are out among us who shouldn't be. it's about ignoring the problems forced on us about 70 years ago when long term hospitalization of the violent mentally ill was attacked by a bunch of do gooders who trusted pills and trusted crazy people to faithfully take them. It's time to get rid of the "least restrictive environment" nonsense when it comes to the small portion of the mentally ill who are violent.
It's time to work on the areas we agree on. The mental health system improvement is one that has widespread support.
If this guy didn't have a mass-murder-rifle, no problem.
If the guy in Vegas didn't have a mass-murder-rifle, no problem.
How long a list do you need?
That's right. He could have just rented a truck at Home Depot and driven into the church.
That's right. He could have just rented a truck at Home Depot and driven into the crowd at the concert.
There won't be a lot of incidents on your list that couldn't have been achieved - or even surpassed - with a vehicle. But no one calls for a ban on trucks.
I was going to ask if you were joking... but there's nothing funny. Just sick.
I'll bet you're cute, too!
If this guy wasn't willing to commit mass murder, no problem. If this guy were still hospitalized for violent mental illness, no problem.
The rifle didn't do anything without the guy behind the rifle. What would you do Bob? Lock up a few crazy people or go after millions of people who are not?
Let's see if logic rules your thinking.
Of course the gun couldn't do anything without the shooter behind it, why do you gun enthusiasts keep using this stupid argument? Obviously, if a gun gets off more rounds, faster, it makes for a more successful rampage. Can you at least agree with this obvious reality?
WTF??
Who needs more than two shots in quick succession? Only mass murderers.
You are battling for the right of mass murderers to keep and bear mass-murder-rifles. You are fighting for the posterity of mass murder.
Are you stoked by ensuring that mass murder can continue? Vicarious pleasure, maybe?
Wrong mass murders lose their rights to acquire guns. You appear to believe they should lose their rights before they are convicted.
And you are becoming a broken record who's anti gun zeal is blocking his view of the real problem. This is why nothing ever happens. Anti gun people can't see further than the gun.
Think about this. In 1994 instead of an "ugly gun ban" ,that didn't stop the sale of any rifle, congress enacted mental health reform. Each state enacted a copy of California's gun restraining order law. A law that disarms violent people and gets them on the prohibited list. Had that happened the shooter would still be locked up in a mental institution and a church full of people would have finished the worship service.
Instead we have wasted 30 years avoiding the problem
Can you agree with the reality that people who would go on a shooting rampage are rare? If the violent mentally ill are hospitalized as they should be they can't pull the trigger.
Once again the debate will be over guns instead of people. Once again nothing will be done to solve the problem.
Shooting rampages are extreme events and rare by their very nature. That being said, they are getting to be much too commonplace in America. I would say it's a growing problem that needs to be addressed. I agree completely that we need to start ensuring that mentally ill people get the help they need.
So... to avoid the gubmint taking away the mass-murder-rifles that you need so desperately to prevent the gubmint taking away your mass-murder-rifles...
... you want the gubmint to screen the mental health of all Americans to decide who may have a mass-murder-rifle?
That's gonna work!
Actually... it would be easy: Since the only reason for mass-murder-rifles is to commit mass murder, it is obvious that anyone who wants one... shouldn't have one.
Fail most people who own them are not mass murderers. The truth is only a tiny fraction of them are.
Bob.
If you want to be taken seriously then you need to have a serious conversation. Snark kills conversation.
Here is my contention. Target individuals that present violent behavior. There are fewer of them than people that don't. We have not been targeting those people because we as a country are so bogged down in a gun control debate that we ignore the problem people.
I propose two things that will have immediate impact. A state by state adoption of CA's gun restraining order law and expanding mental hospital capacity.
What you propose is the same old same old.
Now, do you want a conversation about solutions that can find common ground or just another way to spout snark? If it's the latter then don't waste your time or mine by responding.
Thanks.
Until we start with the problem people the issue will happen again. Got to keep our eyes on doing things that find common ground or we will just keep on doing the same thing over and over while hoping for a different outcome.
Yep. Having to face reality can be upsetting.
Gee... How generous of you to offer me a choice between arsenic and cyanide...
Why do you want a mass-murder-rifle? To what purpose?
Mine prevents leftists from stealing what’s mine. It works so good the only way they are able to do it is by electing thieves to do it thru taxes. No doubt the leftists want to eliminate what they see as a threat so they can eliminate the middleman in the government and do the stealing themselves.
No!
I wouldn't betray Bf...
Even in CA, the restraining order law is only as good as the Judge and the local police want it to be. The fact is, all too many who are found guilty of 'domestic violence' are allowed to keep their guns. In most states, Judges don't ORDER LEOs to confiscate weapons after convictions and AR 15 type rifles aren't required to be registered so LEOs wouldn't even know that a convicted abuser owns one. I don't know how many times I've seen memes about guys hiding their weapons purchases from their wives.
As for hospital expansions, MOST people with mental illness don't necessarily need to be hospitalized. One thing that we CAN do it REQUIRE treatment for abusers AND for those with PTSD. There are hundreds of ex-military that NEED treatment and aren't getting it and the NRA and their ilk had a fit when it was suggested that those with PTSD shouldn't keep their weapons.
Oh and the GOP Congress passed the 'disapproval' of the Obama regulation to list SSI mental health disabilities on the NICS. Trump happily signed it in February.
You are cute, too.
Not as cute as Bf, but not bad at all!
Even in CA, the restraining order law is only as good as the Judge and the local police want it to be. The fact is, all too many who are found guilty of 'domestic violence' are allowed to keep their guns.
Guilt in domestic violence puts a person on the prohibited list. It doesn't prohibit ownership. That is an area that could be explored for improvement for sure.
In most states, Judges don't ORDER LEOs to confiscate weapons after convictions and AR 15 type rifles aren't required to be registered so LEOs wouldn't even know that a convicted abuser owns one. I don't know how many times I've seen memes about guys hiding their weapons purchases from their wives.
Another area of possible legislation.
As for hospital expansions, MOST people with mental illness don't necessarily need to be hospitalized. One thing that we CAN do it REQUIRE treatment for abusers AND for those with PTSD. There are hundreds of ex-military that NEED treatment and aren't getting it and the NRA and their ilk had a fit when it was suggested that those with PTSD shouldn't keep their weapons.
I only want the violent mentally ill hospitalized. That is a small part of that population.
Oh and the GOP Congress passed the 'disapproval' of the Obama regulation to list SSI mental health disabilities on the NICS. Trump happily signed it in February.
That had some issues because of law conflicts. To be on the prohibited list one must be adjudicated. Just being on the SSI list doesn't mean a person has been adjudicated in a court of law mentally ill. Obama's intent was good but the way he did it was not. The law has a mechanism to include people on the NICS list. The president doesn't get to add to it when he feels like it.
Now if we can get congress to look beyond gun control there are things that can be done that would have bipartisan and national support. You and I just demonstrated that.
I guess you don't. Goodbye Bob. Don't bother me again. You have nothing to contribute but snark.
You get what you give...
Zoom zoom!
>-.---.-
He was able to purchase four weapons because the Air Force didn't report the crime he was convicted of yet Texas refused him a CC permit.
Does this sound a bit strange to any of you. I'm not familiar with the gun laws in Texas but if he was refused a CC why was he able to purchase a rifle?
Unless the reporting is all screwed up I sure have a question about this.
It sounds like the authorities knew about his crimes, and knew he wasn't supposed to have the guns he did. They let him slide but stopped him short of the CC permit.
I hope that isn't the answer lenny. If so, they knew he was dangerous but let it slide.
This whole thing sounds like the biggest CF I heard of in quite a while.
The AF fucked up, he escaped from a mental institution, etc etc etc...and he wasn't on anyone's radar...
... and of course... it's easy to get a mass-murder-rifle...
(Let's not call them "assault rifles" any more. They aren't. What they are... their only possible reason for existing... is "mass-murder-rifles".)
Not one manufacturer is making guns so someone can commit mass-murder. Not one.
They are all intended for lawful killing in defense of self or others. Period.
Murderers are misusing these important tools. A gun is not intended to commit murder any more than a hammer or a truck or fertilizer is.
You're defending mass murder...
How many dead, along your road?
I'm against any murder, so I don't know what you're talking about.
The only need for a mass-murder-rifle is mass murder.
Anyone crazy enough to imagine that they're preparing to defeat an invasion from... anywhere... is obviously too insane to be allowed to handle any firearm. Anyone crazy enough to imagine they're going to "resist a gubmint takeover" is obviously too insane to be allowed to handle any firearm.
So... The "old farts saving the day" fantasy is just that... and while I'm willing to believe that there are a few old farts who actually do believe such nonsense. I cannot believe that most of the pro-mass-murder-rifle NT members believe these fantasies... so there's something else going on. I wonder what.
Why do you want a mass-murder-rifle?
E.A NO they are pacifist ... ban MATCHES they are " Fire starters " ;_
CC permits don't apply to rifles in most states as they are considered too big to conceal.
I know that CC don't apply to rifles tom, but what was the reason that the CC was rejected? That is the question that needs to be answered by the authorities.
Whether he had a CC permit is actually irrelevant in this case. He didn't use a handgun, he used an AR and Texas is open carry for rifles.
Oh and the LAST thing that the NRA and their ilk want is for a denial for a CC permit to have any repercussions.
It is interesting though since Texas is a 'shall issue' state. I wonder how long he lived in Texas.
If I'm reading through the Texas concealed carry requirements correctly, the Bad Conduct Discharge would have flagged him and been cause for denial.
For the NICS firearm purchase check, the Bad Conduct Discharge by itself is not enough to flag him. A Dishonorable Discharge OR a BCD with domestic violence conviction would flag him. The Air Force forgot the details of the DV conviction.
I "believe" what happened is, when he was discharged at Holloman AFB, the clerical staff did not notate the input in the data base correctly, not listing the appropriate information needed.
That has been rectified I believe.
I think, (my opinion), that if the founding fathers had known then that weapons would be used to mow down masses of people in schools, churches, concerts and shopping malls, they likely would have penned the 2nd Amendment much differently. I fully support the second amendment, but it's becoming a liability, not an advantage. There needs to be some kind of compromise that allows people to own their guns and not have the USA turn into a daily shooting gallery beyond what it already is. Also? Enough with the, "mentally ill" talking point. Other countries have mentally ill people too and they do not have NEARLY the mass shootings we have, (477 in 2016).
Negative Ghostrider. You first have to understand WHY the 2nd Amendment was written. Put yourself in their shoes. They had just, a few years earlier beaten the shit out of the most powerful army in the world at that time. And in their immediate history, they remembered that it was a huge struggle, as the British had attempted to confiscate all private arms.
Having JUST overthrown a tyrannic government, they realized that if their new government ever went south on the people, the people would have to rise up, and set it back on course. And they need weapons to do so.
I would venture that if the founding fathers had known that the government would grow to the useless bureaucracy it is now, they would oppose the Title III restrictions we have now.
The Fathers are such wonderful puppets! Everyone can make them say whatever they want...
And gosh! It sure is impressive to have James Madison and Alexander Hamilton on your side!
Woulda coulda shoulda....
I would venture that if the founding fathers saw the weaponry we've invented and how it's being used they would have made the 2nd more clear about what a 'well regulated militia' looks like. We'll just have to rely on the Militia acts for that.
So you are saying that the founding fathers would be fine with people shooting up churches, malls, schools and concerts. Got ya,.
Apparently, you have a comprehension problem. Perhaps you missed this part of my comment:
I'm reminded of a meme I've seen on FB many times which basically says "The Founding Fathers would be shooting by now". Meaning that our current government has grown so big and so overbearing that they would support armed resistance. THAT is what I'm saying.
But let me add that you surprise me Mr Frost. I expect that kind of snarky excrement laced response from someone like Bob. It's his modus operandi. But I wold not have considered you to be that low on his level. Your past comments appeared to be well thought out statements of your position on the issues. I guess I was wrong about you. I know see the level of your character. To take a statement that I made and turn it into something completely different speaks volumes about you. And just like Bob, I will now treat you like the whale shit you have proven yourself to be.
Having participated in countless online debates with those I consider to be pro-second amendment zealots please know that I loath, LOATH I tell you, to enter into another gun rights discussion feeling as I do that I have heard it all before BUT there is one thing I believe we should all come together on and that is that we should at least start by enforcing all the gun laws we already have on the books which will necessarily entail the removal of all ballistics from the homes of the millions of Americans who now suffer from one form of serious mental affliction or another requiring that they take mind altering medications (which they may or may not be taking as prescribed at any given moment in time) leaving everyone of us vulnerable to the caprecious and too often mindlesslsy violent whims of the mentally afflicted who are now today in posession of mass killing machines right here in the good ole US of A...
(Hellofa Sentence That One)
Those who need be medicated less they cause harm unto themselves of others surely should not be going about armed to the teeth...
So, YEAH! Let's do enforce the gun laws we already have on the books. That would be a good start. Considering that just about every mass murderer on record in recent years has at one time or another been known to suffer from mental illnesses who can honestly disagree with getting about the business of removing firearms and other dangerous weapons from the control of those on mental drugs? If one must take Xanax or Prozac or Paxil or some other often more probably more potent mind altering substances to get though one's day without doing harm unto oneself or one's others then one really should not be in posession of any firearms. Period.
Let the hedging begin...
Look, the man was in a mental institution for a valid reason. He escapes....he is caught.....he is kicked out of Air force....he is back on the streets. Does that make any sense? He is sending his mother in law threatening texts....he is still out on the streets. AF doesn't put him properly in database.....makes no sense.
I doubt seriously that he was seeing a mental professional, therefore, no prescribed medications. Maybe, he medicated himself....who knows?
Should the mother in law have reported the threats? Would you allow your children to be with a person who you know for a fact is capable of violence? Probably, didn't want to escalate the situation.
Not all mental illnesses affect that person into harming himself and/or others. It is a slippery slope.
I think you have touched on the more important issue - he had serious mental issues, he beat a woman & fractured the skull of an infant, yet he is eventually allowed to walk among innocent human beings. We need to go back to institutionalizing the criminally insane!
As far as the Air Force failing to pass on information that would have prevented this sick animal from having a gun, the government which claims it will protect us has failed again. It was a citizen who lived & worshiped in that small town which prevented the slaughter of more people. (what was once called a "clinger")
Hipaa privacy laws while good in concept has made some things problematic.
This is one of them.
Ii is not as easy and clear cut as one would think to deal with privacy issues like this. I tend to error on the side of more privacy is better than less. Not popular is cases like this but it is what it is.
It is EXTREMELY difficult to get someone into a mental health institute when it Is clearly shown that that particular person is a threat to society. It takes professionals, courtrooms and judges. This is not a bad thing on its own, otherwise, families could have a family member committed for no good reason.
I go on the side of privacy where mental health is concerned. Mental health has degrees of severity just like physical diseases....not every illness is terminal.
But, this man had a history and fell through the cracks.
Magnolia - he was in NM during his stent with the AF (after he graduated from San Antonio). NM has very flexible administration for allowing folks in and out of the various mental health institutes. The primary admission questions are - are they suicidal - have they threatened to harm someone - are they threatening to harm themselves - and those are the basics. The Peak Center is probably one of the most lax with their security protocols (and I say that from experience with a family member). A person admitted can just - walk out. I've had two nephews admitted, supposedly until they were "detoxed", but within 48 hours, both of them just walked out the doors and no one attempted to stop them. So I seriously don't think he "escaped" as is being broadcast.
This is exactly why it's problematic. It's easy to be a backseat driver after the fact, using 20/20 hindsight to judge what was or wasn't done but in real life it is not that clear cut in real time. The stigma society places on mental illness is a HUGE problem in the US. And honestly, in some ways that is good thing since once a person get adjudicated mentally defective in this country they lose all sorts of rights. Sometimes for life.
Obviously some of them make all the sense in the world, like this case but it isn't always that clear cut. Take Vets who get diagnosed with PTSD for example. That can be a death sentence for them on gun ownership regardless of severity of the PTSD. Their avenues for future gun owership are vague and bleak even after they "get better." And that is all sorts of wrong.
So ..... it isn't as simple and clear cut as one can easily make it sound after the fact on an internet blog.
In and out the door! I believe that. And, your comment about his "escaping" could be very true. A person who enters a hospital for physical problems can leave even without a doctor's approval. it seems to me that a person who has been committed to a mental facility would have the options unless they were committed without their consent based on the reason why they were first admitted.
It can be a stigma for life and that's an understated fact.
For instance, bi polar, depression, anxiety can be treated by professionals through medication. These people are fully capable of living in society without causing harm to themselves or someone else. On the other hand, there are mental illnesses that can be medicated successfully, but requires constant vigilance and, sometimes. in house care.
On some job applications the question is asked pertaining to mental illness. A person would be a fool to say yes. One can say, yes, I am diabetic without a stigma. But, one cannot say, yes, I am bi polar without there being a stigma.
I don't believe we will ever get it right.
Too many times!
Yep, i know more than a few folks. Vets or otherwise, who do not seek treatment because just admitting that you "might" need treatment can lead to a loss of certain rights for an indeterminate time.
There really is no easy answer.