START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

GUN CONTROL FAILING: Slipping Through the Cracks, One Background Check at a Time


US Politics & Gov't  (tags: government, ethics, GUN CONTROL, gun control, SOCIETY, gun laws, media, congress, crime, americans, politics, usa, SupremeCourt, freedoms )

Cal
- 1435 days ago - msnbc.msn.com
Despite glaring signs of mental instability, Jared Lee Loughner was still able to buy a Glock semiautomatic pistol



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Michelle Martini (20)
Tuesday January 18, 2011, 12:47 pm
This seems quite obvious...
 

Yvonne White (233)
Tuesday January 18, 2011, 1:16 pm
"Federal law prohibits the purchase of guns by anyone “adjudicated as a mental defective.” But Loughner was never declared mentally ill by a court of law. As an adult, Loughner would have had to seek treatment on his own accord, but no one, including his parents, seems to have encouraged him to do so." Which is why SO many do not seek help - once you are diagnosed as mentally ill (for Whatever reason) you lose rights.. so far too many don't get help.

 

Carol H. (229)
Tuesday January 18, 2011, 3:05 pm
thanks Cal, noted
 

chris b. (2474)
Tuesday January 18, 2011, 3:57 pm
Ban guns period, end of problem! Including those issued to trigger happy cops!
 

Lin Penrose (92)
Tuesday January 18, 2011, 5:03 pm
Thanks Cal. There are many ways to kill. Perhaps this M.L. person would have anyway. In a very sad and bad way, he is a victim also.
 

(0)
Tuesday January 18, 2011, 7:52 pm
Sad situation all the way around
 

Carol Cowbrough (95)
Thursday January 20, 2011, 1:59 am
Noted. Thank you.
 

Bon L. (0)
Thursday January 20, 2011, 4:51 am
Thanks for the info.
 

Gary C. (5)
Thursday January 20, 2011, 10:07 am
noted thankyou....
 

Rita S (3)
Thursday January 20, 2011, 3:49 pm
Thanks.
 

Morris G. (18)
Thursday January 20, 2011, 6:12 pm
"Ban guns period, end of problem! "
Sorry gun ownership is a constitutionally protected RIGHT!. Not a privilege. Can't be banned and the Supreme Court has confirmed this. I suggest we ban criminals. Wait, we did that already! How'd that work?
 

Marilyn K. (51)
Thursday January 20, 2011, 6:59 pm
The government came down hard on the tobacco industry, giving huge awards to people who smoked for years even though they knew it was not good for their health, put laws in place so that smoking is prohibited almost every where but when it comes to manufacturing guns they do nothing. Why not just arm every man, woman and child and do away with the police departments, that should save some money for the budget.
 

Robert B. (58)
Thursday January 20, 2011, 7:04 pm
Why does the gun issue always have to be either "Ban guns" or "gun rights" ? Has this country lost it's ability to see the grey area and figure out a sane solution? Obviously we need to control certain types of guns and ammo to make sure unqualified people don't get access. A system that allows a one day instant background check is broken. The utterly stupid bill introduced that would ban guns within a thousand feet is absurd. It does nothing to solve the problem. The US has one of the highest death rates by gun of any country in the world. If gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right then there ALSO has to be responsibility and I'm sorry but unstable or violent people DO NOT have a constitutional right to own guns.
 

DANIEL h. (6)
Thursday January 20, 2011, 7:21 pm
I will be so happy, when all this gun, control, or kill that gun, or if i have had a gun, my child would still be alive, and im scared of that gun walking over here and rapeing me, and if we all didn't have guns, and the criminals, all had guns, we would be safer, and take your guns to one friend, and take your bullets to another friend, and you can sleep better, and let us all get our guns, melt them down, and build a new war ship for china, and all the american, army boys carry sling shots in to war, and the north koreans,are carrying m16teens,because, all the people in the USA, voted to sell all the guns, that were in the states, just to get rid of them, so they would feel safe. Now if you took the time to read this, and found one segment, that made a little sense to you, you may have some common sense left. I'am one of those few people, we have left, that will fight till my death, for the constitution, and all of our rights, and the 2nd amendment is very dear to me, as all the amendments are. And i want any one to have the right, to be able, to say they don't like, guns,cars, or what ever, not like the Republican party, to run on, gun rights, but they are such liars, how would you know if they really feel that way, they all may hate guns. I do know they are not very safe with a gun in hand, remember when Chaney, shot that guy in the head, with a shot gun, and the poor old guy, had to get on tv, and try to tell every one, it was his fault, that Chaney shot him.!WOW! I don't want any one to lose any more rights. They are working, to take your rights away from you 24/7, they are trying to take your freedom of speech, away from all of us, right under our nose, and the 2nd amendment also.
 

Julie W. (22)
Thursday January 20, 2011, 10:38 pm
Australian Premier, John Howard, created a 'gun buy back' scheme after a madman went on a shooting spree in Tasmania. (I forget how many people he killed). It wasn't popular with some people, but it worked.

We just seem to have a different attitude here - we don't see owning guns as a 'right'. Sure, there are blackmarket guns in the hands of criminals, but few of us feel the need to own a gun.
 

Charlene Rush (2)
Friday January 21, 2011, 3:30 pm
Why do I need a driver's license to prove that I know how to drive an automobile, and I don't need a license to show that I know how to fire a gun? Please, would someone explain this to me.

This business about the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms, is becoming obnoxious.
When our forefathers drafted the Constitution, does any rational person believe that they could have predicted the type of weapons that would be avilable, today? I don't believe, for one minute, they would support automatic weapons, with numerous clips, for the average citizen. You would need your head examined to conclude that.

The NRA is 'one' perfect example of Big Business, and they have the resources to spend whatever is necessary to keep extremely liberal gun laws in place. This does not preclude that they should be able to write their own gun laws, which is currently the situation.
 

TL H. (3)
Friday January 21, 2011, 6:58 pm
Charlene R. if that is true then the whole Constitution is invalid.Radio,TV,internet,DVDs,CDs,didn't exist when the Constitution was written so free speech would not apply to them.It would only apply to the spoken or printed word.
 

jane richmond (10)
Saturday April 30, 2011, 5:47 pm
ONE THIRD GRADER SOLD ANOTHER THIRD GRADER A LOADED GUN FOR $3. HOW DID HE GET IT? HIS FATHER!
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Cal Mendelsohn

Cal M.
Cal's contributions:
Stories noted recently: 163
Stories submitted: 24514
Front Page stories: 21443




 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.