Any News on Shooters' Meds?

Tagged:  

So far, I haven't heard anything as to what the results of toxicology tests on the recent group of shooters were. Maybe drug screens should be used to determine who can buy weapons? Get on relief, enter the country, and so on?

No votes yet

But drug tests are?

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

I asked a question. I didn't mention background checks. Maybe you should learn to read?

I assumed you were looking to start a discussion instead of trying to search for the results of a tox screen on two mass murderers. If that's the case, I highly recommend Google.

But since it's been alluded to previously by a dashingly handsome and amply endowed commenter who knows how to use the reply link correctly, where do you stand on the constitutionality of mandatory background checks or drug screenings for gun purchases?

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

Are you suggesting people who don't use the reply link correctly are ignorant?

Why don't you address purnhrt directly?

MikeyA

If they throw around accusations of illiteracy yet can't or won't read the word "Reply" in the bottom of each comment.

And also if their name is G-Man.

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

Lanza and Loughner both were denied weapons because of background checks. One was still able to buy a gun elsewhere, the other found access to guns elsewhere.

Background checks are a waste of time with no follow-up on those who do not pass. Expanding who gets checked will do nothing.

MikeyA

NOW!

There is gun control. There are so many gun control laws on the books that it discourages people from getting Conceal Carry permits (you have to know the CCW laws of each state that you travel through).

There are bad people who want to do despicable things--and no law/control is going to stop them. To make it difficult for other people to own guns and ammunition to protect themselves against these bad people, is ridiculous.

I fully support keep guns out of the hands of ignorant people like purnhrt.

MikeyA

If Dorothy, threw water on her, she'd melt away....

HANDBANDANA, with an attitude like that, I'm NOT going to ANY questions, until mine are answered first!

James Holmes
Adam Lanza

Now back to what that commenter with the lean, yet muscular frame was asking: Where do you stand on the constitutionality of mandatory background checks or drug screenings for gun purchases?

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

Gun control, is a half inch group at a hundred yards.

IDIOT CONTROL........

NOW!

The woman who made illegal straw purchases of some of the weapons used at Columbine was never even prosecuted. So, the government ignores laws already in force, and instead, wants new ones that will only affect the law abiding.

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

Just like the 85,000 people caught lying on firearms purchasing forms, and only 6 went to trial? None of the anti-gun crowd gives a damn about new laws, unless the laws are calling for unilateral confiscation.

The definition of a criminal is:
criminal [ˈkrɪmɪnəl] (n)
1. (Law) a person charged with and convicted of crime
2. a person who commits crimes for a living

Get that or should it be repeated? A criminal is "a person who commits crimes for a living".

So what makes ANYONE think that someone "who commits crimes for a living" will follow that ONE new law about background checks?

Are you all telling me that a criminal WILL ignore the law against carrying a weapon WITHOUT A PERMIT, a criminal WILL ignore the law against robbery, a criminal WILL ignore the law against discharging a firearm inside city limits, a criminal WILL ignore the law against murder, BUT by some magical coincidence, that ONE new law, that ONE law about applying for purchase, that ONE new law saying you will submit to a background check, THAT will be the ONE law that a criminal will magically obey?

If only the world were really as simplistic as some people think it is, all you would need would be a law against murder. THEN nobody would be killed by a firearm, poison, a baseball bat, or a glass of water.

IF criminals obeyed the law, you would NEED NO MORE LAWS because it's already illegal to murder someone.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

Holmes' shrink warned cops, plus he was on at least two anti psychotic medications, and still running around loose! http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-james-holmes-docume...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.