NYT Points Finger At: "the well-dressed gun lobbyist hanging out just outside their chamber door"

[kpete]

Editorial
An Assault on Everyone’s Safety
Published: January 10, 2011

.....................

The gun itself was purchased by Mr. Loughner at a sporting goods store that followed the bare-minimum federal background check, which only flags felons, people found to be a danger to themselves or others, or those under a restraining order.

Mr. Loughner was rejected by the military for failing a drug test, and had five run-ins with the Pima Community College police before being suspended for disruptive activity. Why can’t Congress require a background check — without loopholes for gun shows or private sales — that would detect this sort of history? If the military didn’t want someone like Mr. Loughner to be given a firearm, neither should the public at large.

At least two members of Congress say they will start to carry weapons to district meetings, the worst possible response. If lawmakers want to enhance their safety, and that of their constituents, they should recognize that the true public menace is the well-dressed gun lobbyist hanging out just outside their chamber door.

the rest:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/opinion/11tue1.html?src=dayp

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. Whoa!

Here they come.

:sarcasm:

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rbixby]

4. The second amendment!

:sarcasm: guarantees the right bear arms, regardless of mental health status! :sarcasm:

[Kingofalldems]

5. I want my guns!!

K and R

[Statistical]

6. "f the military didn’t want Mr. Loughner to be given a firearm, neither should the public"

Really that is the standard?

The military bars people for enlistment due to
* positive drug screen
* handicapped (including things like insomnia, diabetes, no color vision)
* being overweight
* an unwilliness or inability to take the oath of enlistment
* prior to DADT repeal for being openly homosexual

So that should be the standard on who gets a gun? Really?

Only straight, non drug using (except currently allowed "OK" drugs), normal weight, "patriotic", straights should have access to firearm.

The NICS check needs to be improved.
There needs to be a better method to get mental records included. I am not a layer so I don't know how. Dueprocess needs to be preserved but that is what we should be looking at.
The Police should charge suspects on multiple run-ins (but they usually don't due to budget cuts).
There should be a requirement for schools to report disruptions (possibly mandated mental health).

These are complex issues and they deserve attention but are we talking about that? Nope.


The answers so far:
* banning 11 round magazines
* making it illegal to carry a gun within 1000 ft of a politician (the utter stupidity of that is well stupid)
* making downright stupid claims like the military should set the standard for who gets a firearm.

Real solutions = hard.
Thoughtless anti-gun rhetoric - incredibly easy.