I for one hope they do pat themselves on the back and I thank them for doing the best they can to protect those of us who do not wave the 2nd amendment around in OUR face! I hope he goes to jail and stays there, that is one off the streets and hopefully more to come! Most of us commend our police department and their public service to ALL of us! That is my opinion and the last time I looked at the Constitution I was entitled to that too!

Totally agree, but in this case I think the cops have done their job (although the PR display is way over the top).

I agree with you Neil. How many times have you said, I'm gonna kill you....to your dog, to your spouse, kids, friends etc. No intent meant at all. I said that to our dog, while cleaning the papertowel he just shredded all over the hall carpet. Walked to the couch, sat down and proceeded to cuddle with him for the next hour or so. People say things like that alot. But, he had so many guns...why? ????

He *also* said he wanted to see his "supervisor's brains splattered all over the sidewalk," Susan, according to the 4:00 PM news. Do you make those kinds of threats, too? (Of course not.) And if all one is doing is "collecting" guns, why does he or she need the ammunition that goes with them? Surely there must be some way that guns kept for archival purposes only can be disarmed--and some way that the "collector" can be prevented from re-arming and loading them.

Neil - We might be be able to avoid some of these mass murder/crazies deadly sprees if everyone were more alert to potential harm. How many friends/family/neighbors later say "I knew he was acting oddly, had weapons and was talking about shooting people" when interviewed about mass murders, but they did nothing to prevent it. The police did a great job here; the employer was 100% correct to ask this dude be investigated. Making threats is against the law; as is acting on them. Makes no sense to ignore threats; they are the warning before the storm.

I don't think bringing him in is the wrong thing to do. All of the posturing by the police and the media is what annoys me. What happened to innocent until proven guilty. Think about the Duke lacrosse players. Their lives were ruined over a lie. The boss may be the problem. We don't know yet.

Locking this guy up was the correct thing to do. I am a recreational shooter in trap, rifle, and pistol. The difference between this guy and most SANE people is that we don't go around wearing a shirt saying "Guns don't kill people, I do!" Lock him up and throw away the key.

He made a threat and obviously had the means, and the intent, to follow through with his threat. Obviously something isn't quite wired right in this guy's head. Sure we all make hollow threats when upset, but does the average person build up an armory of weapons, let alone illegally? No. Innocent until proven guilty; I believe the evidence proves his guilt.

http://www.shoesmallshop.com/Inexpensive. Full range here as long as you need as long as you want http://www.shoesmallshop.com/Everything. Synthesis. This is the comprehensive trade website

But we don't have a house full off guns.

Should we have waited till after he shot and killed several people and then patted himself on the back?

So Neil B, like Lori said, should they have waited? Are you saying that it's best to sit idly by and only arrest people after they have taken innocent lives?

Kind of like fishing for Tuna with nets? The hell with the dolphins that get trapped and killed. If memory serves me correctly the intent of the legal system was to allow guilty people to go free rather than convict even one innocent person. I'm still waiting to hear why this guy was fired and if this was just to avoid the unemployment claim or wrondful termination lawsuit. Happened before and will happen again.

A gun store or show. He could have inherited them. He could be a small time collector.
A brick of .22's is 500 rounds. 6 bricks is 3000 rounds. That's how many buy them in bulk to save money.

Windriver- I was thinking the same thing. I have thousands of rounds of .22s. The media would spin that to make it sound like I'm preparing for war, I guess.

Henry: I agree with you 100% about heading off a potential disaster. The police and ATF took immediate action based on the context of the threats, which is the way those type of threats MUST be handled. Job well done!

I don't agree with how the mainstream media will handle this and how the gun-grabbers will blow it out of proportion in their constant effort to disarm the law-abiding citizens of America. (see my post below)

Registration of firearms is voluntary in MD. It is not required, that would be unconstitutional.
Also a class three weapon (NFA) tax stamp is $200 per item. NFA weapons require local law enforcement approval as well as local, state and federal background checks. The process takes 6 to 8 months right now. The item and owner/s are registered.

Austin Martin: Maryland Handgun Registration Forms indicate "Voluntary Registration" HOWEVER, don't get caught in the People's Republic of Maryland with an unregistered handgun unless you want to share a jail cell with "Bubba"!

Thanks Terry. The fact is that any gun legally owned gun can be brought into MD without registration. If I lived in PA or VA and bought a hand gun at a gun show and then move to MD, I do not need to get my firearm registered.
If it is a NFA weapon you have to notify the BATFE and get permission. As it stands, I'm subject to BATFE inspection anyway (guess why). No worries here.

Well said!

Excellent comment, Terry.

The cave men used fire to burn out their competitors, rocks and clubs to beat them with. It has been and always will be crazies.

Yea well what about us "citizens" who are killed by the ones who stand behind that second amendment? Seems to me that it was written so the "white man" could slaughter the Native Americans and take their land, which they did....I do not oppose guns and if you want one then so be it, but how many deer do you have to kill with your "semi-automatic" rifles anyhow? HA!

Anyone who would own 25 semiautomatic rifles IS a "wacko."

Nice generalization.

Funny thing is - it fits.

Excellent post, wish (self-interestedly) you were still in law enforcement.

You are correct, guns are not the problem, but the easy acquisition of said weapons and the limited to no training required to carry a concealed weapon in most states is very much the problem. I have no problem if a person in order to get a concealed weapons permit has to complete a stress based shooting course with an acceptable score and an annual recertification in order to carry said concealed weapon.

No then tell me what the practical use of a 30 round clip is if you are not in a war zone. Or for that matter any weapon with a 2" barrel unless you are a plainclothes cop who wants no one to know they are carrying and clearly understand that beyond 10 ft they might as well throw rocks.

Also there is a fundamental difference between vehicles, knives. ice picks and pipe, all of them are improvised weapons that have a fundamental purpose other then being used to kill someone. A gun has a single purpose, to kill and no other. Yes there are gun sports and i used to do competitive small bore pistol as a part of modern pentathlon, but that is a military sport like biathalon.

There is a fundamental responsibility if you are going to own weapons and they should be required to purchase and carry them.

Mike:
Thank you.
Sometimes I wish I wasn't so darned old and cold still get down in the dirt to help keep the dirt-bags off the street and in jail where they belong. However, I found out that old age and treachery will overcome youth and stupidity every time........

Yes. It was in PG County where the police raided Mayor Cheye Calvo's house and needlessly killed his dog.

Who said anything about asking the NRA for a "solution"? This is an example of what should have happened. Dude made a threat and got arrested. I could do without the over the top display of the man's firearms which is clearly nothing more than a PR stunt the police are doing, but nevertheless this ended well. There is no "problem" as far as I can see, but if you want to go on an emotional rant that really adds nothing to the discussion.

NEED is not the issue. No one NEEDS to comment on the internet either.
There are I would guess millions of Americans with collections like this or larger and they will never cause a problem. When one nastyass commenter here violates the posting rules should all be denied the opportunity to comment? When a drunk driver uses a Chevy to kill a van full of people do we ban Chevys?

Carol, given your emotional response and the bulk of your comment, the only way to accomplish your goal is to amend the Constitution. you and yours have that right so have at it sweety.

No, Windriver--we ban driving drunk.

You are very wrong on the first part off your comment. I say this for the simple fact that a free person does not need a "reason" to exercise their rights. Just because you may not be aware of a reason to own several firearms and large amounts of ammunition does not mean that I may not have one (not that anyone needs a reason). I’m sure I could name an individual "reason" for each firearm and round I own. Once a "reason" is required freedom is lost.
I agree with you on the second part of your post! Job well done by all. Thank you.

Carol, nobody "needs" any number of the things that people collect. If this guy was intent on murdering someone, all he NEEDED was one well-aimed round from one functioning firearm. So what's your point?

Your right Carol... we ban the drunk driver not the chevy.... hope you understand what you just said...

No one ever bands 'driving drunk'. We simply punish you for being 'too drunk'. Banning driving drunk would mean a zero tolerance.

Maybe we should only allow a certain number of weapons or bullets per registered voter? Like 25 or so guns?

People are getting angrier and angrier with the system and their lots in life. Until that is address you will continue to get what you get - so don't complain.

LOL, hey man, executive privilege.

Has Eric Holder received a Nobel Prize yet for Fast and Furious? Seriously, Eric Holder got a border patrol agent killed over that. And Obama is hiding behind "executive privilege". If that's not criminal it should be.

Windriver: EGG-ZACK-LY!!!

Are you seriously trotting that out again?

@Honeygo Hal - what do you mean "trotting that out again?" This crime perpetrated by Holder and countless accomplices is still very much an ongoing issue. Maybe it's just gone on past your personal attention span, which is what Holder and Obama are hoping will happen with most voters.

Stan - Sorry you weren't in on it. That very topic was discussed this very day with Windriver. http://perryhall.patch.com/articles/county-police-chief-joins-call-for-stricter-gun-laws
You may want to catch up on the facts.

Well then, since I hadn't read the Arbutus Patch article, my question is entirely reasonable. From the little bit of it I DID read just now, Chief Johnson is referring to non-dealer sales, and there is no indication that Holmes bought any firearms other than from dealers. Apples and oranges.

Honeygo is right. Windy posted some stuff that honeygo could not dispute so he attacked windy for his spelling and language. One only does that when they lose the argument and have nothing else.

Joe - that would make you the expert reasons people do things? Truth be told I spent a lot of time "discussing" his reference to Eric Holder yesterday, and my link pointed back to that, as I had no desire to re-post all of that in this thread. I do like to respect others' screen names, and when mine was attacked I retaliated. But I guess that didn't work, so maybe I should join the crowd. WindBag will now be addressed differently, and you too, JoeBlob

Somewhere among the developers of repeating firearms, there is someone who richly regrets not having coined the term "self-loading" instead of "semi-automatic."

Stan is right here... like a revolver only one round is discharged at a time... and each round discharged requires a human thought process to pull the trigger... Now the thought process is that "auto loaded or semi-automatic"...? one would think the amount of shoe leather some of these post is putting in the "human feeding orifice" is semi-automatic triggered by the word gun.

And your point would be what? I have friends who have far more money invested in motorcycles and fast cars.

alicia: Thanks! There are millions and millions of folks in this country that do, as well. Unfortunately, this country is run by a bunch of jerks that want TOTAL control of our lives.

Terry - I would suggest that, in the right circumstances, someone execising their 2nd Amendment rights DOES have TOTAL control of our lives - just a trigger-pull away.

So people who can speak intelligently about guns are "backwoods freaks"? Let me guess: you're single.

Carol,

My posts were informed. Yours rejoiced in your admitted and willful ignorance of the very points I made. Yours made reckless assumptions and displayed gross stereotyping. I attacked those who don't know the meaning of words, and those who do and don't care, misleading people fraudulently.

You have chosen to make reckless inferences, to be as rude as anything you attack but with no underlying basis in logic or fact, to argue the merits of willful ignorance, and to lob around disgusting stereotypes. I'd say "shame on you" but you've achieved it entirely on your own.

This nut-case had the potential to do serious harm, as indicated by the saying on his t-shirt and the phone threats made to his former employer. That is a given.

Thank God the police acted immediately on the verbal threat this idiot made by phone and had him committed for psychiatric evaluation by using an EP. The only criminal charge that could be placed, by the information in the news story, is "telephone misuse", unless the law has been changed. There may well be more tpo this individual's background and I'm sure that the police and ATF will get to the bottom of it.........unless Eric Holder or Barack Hussein Obama are involved!

I would say that the t-shirt combined with his prior outbursts created probable cause.

Carol, let me try this again: THERE IS VIRTUALLY NO SUCH THING AS A MODERN GUN WHICH CANNOT BE FIRED WITHOUT RELOADING.

VIRTUALLY EVERY GUN, SHORT OF EXTREMELY OLD ANTIQUES, AND A COUPLE TYPES OF LONG GUNS (some shotguns, bolt-action rifles, and a few others), IS SEMI-AUTOMATIC.

The point being, almost ALL guns can be fired repeatedly without reloading. And thus, banning semi-automatics is nearly banning all guns.

You already admitted you don't know what you're talking about AND that you don't want to know. Stop there, it's your most cogent point by several orders of magnitude.

....and if there would have been just ONE concealed carry permit holder inside that theater with his/her handgun, the majority of those unfortunate casualties may well have been prevented. However, the theater chain that owns that particular movie house has signs posted to the effect, "No Concealed Weapons Permitted".

Terry, as other experts have pointed out, had anyone else in the theatre at Aurora been armed, there would likely have been more casualties--because they wouldn't be able to see through the tear-gas. That young man was also armed from head to toe with bullet-proof coverage. Even if they could've aimed at and hit him--it's not likely they would have stopped him.

Carol B.: No offense directed at you but, who are the so-called "experts" that made that insane statement, ".....had anyone else in the theatre at Aurora been armed, there would likely have been more casualties--because they wouldn't be able to see through the tear-gas."? For anyone that has been through a gas chamber in the military, or police academy, myself included in both, knows that you can, in fact, see through tear gas. Sure, it burns your eyes and makes your nose run but, in a large room with ventilations, such as the movie theater, you actually can see to react to the situation. You may have been thinking of a smoke grenade, whgich does create dificculty in seeing. Also, the dirt bag (which I refuse to write his name to give him more undeserved publicity) was wearing a bullet-proof vest, throat and crotch protector. His head, legs, arms, habds and feet had no ballistic protection. One well-placed shot would have stopped the carnage.

Also, don't come down hard on the NRA. They have been around for well over 100 years and have done so much for the youth and adults in America. As a Life Member, I support them wholeheartedly. Take some time and visit them at www.nra.org and browse their website.

Back to the original purpose of this news story....this guy should be committed for a long time and his firearms confiscated. HE is the danger to society, NOT his guns.

Terry - Consider Aurora: dark theater, gas of some sort (has it been released what kind?), people trying to escape - let's presume "you" get the shot off. Probably need more than 1 unless you are Bruce Willis. Very nervous place. 70 people down or injured. The police arrive in less than 2 minutes, and they really don't know the exact situation. Are you really sure you want to be the only one in the theater with a gun drawn when the police arrive? Remember, you can't yell "Cut" and the action stops.

Just Sayin'

Honeygo Hal: I don't have to "consider it". I've lived events in which pulling the trigger would have been justified but, thank God, the bad guy stopped what he was doing and surrendered. In the case of Aurora, CO, there would have been no hesitation on my part. The ONLY way a nut-case like that can be stopped before further casualties are caused is to pull the trigger. Bruce Willis? HA! I'd like to have the money that he has! No, I'm talking about real life.....my scores at the range have been consistantly 98 to 100%......for 42 years. To answer your question, yes, I would absolutely have taken the shot to stop the fool that shot the folks in Colorado. But, remember, as I stated before....that particular theater chain has signs posted that NO concealed firearms are permitted. Hmmmmm....do ya' think the shooter knew that? Do you think that he knew that his chances of succeeding were almost 100% because there would be little or no resistance?

Terry - everybody should have a best friend like you, to be by our side at all times to be sure that no bad guys jump out of their Hyundai and go into shoot-em-up mode. Or, the country could become peaceful enough that we don't have to be afraid to go to the movies.

Have you ever had to defend yourself or your home from deadly force? The last thing you want to do is run out of ammo. If you restrict the right of lawful ownership and use of high capacity magazines then you are disarming good law abiding citizens. The bad guys will always have it. Don’t try to take it away from the good people. Living free requires us to assume responsibility for our own security. We all need to do a better job of reporting nut-jobs like this guy. This story is a perfect example of how it should be done. If you try to stop crazy people with laws, you will be disappointed with the outcome (they are crazy). Just look at current "gun control" laws. All they do is allow bad people to carry guns and good people to be left defenseless. If you rely on a over worked, out-gunned and underpaid police officer for your 24/7 security then have already lost. Currently you are restricted to a maximum capacity of 20 rounds per magazine (new purchase) most handguns sold in MD are restricted to 10 rounds. If you are restricted to 10 rounds and a home invader has 100 rounds, who do you think has the upper hand? How is this right or just?

AGREED!
And, did you notice that The Patch has an advertisement to wish Obama a happy birthday, which is sponsored by Obama's campaign? It no doubt costs money to do that. I don't ever remember, in my 65 years, any newspaper or website advertising for something like that......since Marilyn Monroe sang "Happy Birthday Mr. President" to JFK, but that was not a fund-raising effort........but I gues something was raised!

What are you saying? That Obama's campaign can't buy an ad in the Patch? It's their money.

Honeygo Hal: I said what I said. Don't spin it into something I didn't say.

Obama can spend his money wherever he wants and the Patch can sell to whoever they want. Romney can spend his money wherever he wants and the Patch can sell to whoever they want.

Actually, it is international news!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19022567

Terry - I'm sorry, I truly misunderstood what you were saying.

Tea L, the police didn't have sufficient cause to arrest the man. He was detained for his mental state. There is a real chance he is released after being evaluated. So how would you feel knowing this guy is released and going back to that apartment full of guns? How would the Founders feel about that since the gun lovers seem to have a pipeline to what the Founder thought.

I didn't say they *were,* nmn--in fact, I indicated that I had friends who were responsible gun-owners who would never use them to harm anyone else. I have been educated by those people, with kindness (not the kind of abusive, offensive, self-righteous rants that some individuals have posted here) about the way people who have respect for all life--not just human life--store and use them, and as much as I have also known other gun-toters who had no such ethics, I can appreciate their position. If you are responsible gun-owner who does not leave his loaded weapons in the flatbed of his truck (for example) for a 4-year old to find and appropriate (to his own mortal detriment), or store arsenals of ammunition against some eventual mass carnage, you aren't the kind of mindless "backwoods" imbecile to which I was referring. Being educated about guns--like being educated in martial arts--makes you a more ethical, decent human being . . . not one who engages in condescending, name-calling rants.

This is very true, great point. I see people from both sides misrepresenting the other all the time.

I Could not agree more.

I certainly hope we are kept informed about how this situation plays out.

We may be looking at someone who was a potential workplace shooter, or we may simply be looking at a gun collector who simply said some stupid things that alerted the police.

Thus far, it appears to me that the police action was entirely appropriate, given the information they were working with.

Tom good post and i agree with all but one tiny thing. " Rights given by the Constitution are rights and not contingent on an individual's needs and limited by quantities." The Constitution dont give anyone rights, GOD does, they are GOD given rights. We also have many more rights NOT listed in the Constitution, that was why the founding fathers had second thoughts about having a bill of rights. They were afraid someone would take the bill of rights as a list of your only rights. Look at what is going on today, lots of folks seem to think just that, and its NOT so.

A 3500 pound auto at 40 mph into a crowd is a good way to take out many.
"In March 2006, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, an Iranian-American, intentionally, as he confessed, hit people with a sport utility vehicle on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to "avenge the deaths of Muslims worldwide" and to "punish" the United States government. While no one was killed in the attack, nine people were injured (none seriously).

Shortly after the attack, he turned himself in and was arrested. He pled guilty to nine counts of attempted first-degree murder, and in 2008 was sentenced to 33 years in prison.[2]

In one letter, Taheri-azar wrote, "I was aiming to follow in the footsteps of one of my role models, Mohamed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, who obtained a doctorate degree."[3]

Local Muslim leaders condemned the attack and the attempt by the assailant to link the Qur'an to his actions. After a debate as to whether it was as an act of terrorism, UNC Chancellor James Moeser stopped short of calling it a full-fledged act of terror."

Like they said in the movie Jurasic Park - Nature Will Find a Way - so will those intent on 'getting even and making it a level playing field'. Start addressing the underlying social issues.

Free speech, maybe? You must act on your words or conspire with others for it to be a crime. In this case, law enforcement saw enough to take the suspect into custody.

You are exactly right. The mainstream news media, as far as I'm concerned, plants these wacko ideas in the unstable minds of this country everytime there is a multiple shooting. They don't just report it once.....they continue on and on with details that the public does not need to know about and, in many instances, jeapordizes the prosecution of court cases and sometimes leads to dismissal of the case against the guilty party.

Terry said "The mainstream news media...plants these wacko ideas in the unstable minds...they continue (to report) details that he public does not need to know about...".

Wow - so you are okay with people owning as many guns as they want but not okay with the media having freedom of speech? These rights things get tricky, don't they?

Chuck, the man was detained for his mental state. What if he had presented himself as mentally stable to police? Would they have detained him? It doesn't appear so. Thus, this guy would still have access to all those guns and now he would really be pissed off. What next? Who knows? My point is that the access to the guns is the problem. We don't know many times if someone is a threat until after the shooting dies down.

Sean said: "Wow - so you are okay with people owning as many guns as they want but not okay with the media having freedom of speech? These rights things get tricky, don't they?"

Actually Sean, Terry said nothing about abridging freedom of speech in the media or elsewhere. He simply used speech to condemn other speech in the media. That's how it is supposed to be done. Let the listeners decide. Without using threat of government guns to silence anyone, which is what violating free speech looks like.

There are plenty of tricky things around, but this one isn't tricky at all.

Mike, so, if Terry believes the media is reporting information "the public does not need to know," what exactly is she advocating?

Some on line retailers sell bulk ammo IN the old surplus ammo cases found in this man home. It is a great way to buy if you shoot regularly.

One man's nut case is another man's fellow gun enthusiast.

Obviously, you have never encountered a REAL threat to yourself or your family and I hope that you never do. Sadly,

Obama, Holder and Clinton are on board with the U.N. to take our Constitution and Amendments and run them through the shredder. When that happens, and it will if Obama is re-elected, don't bitch about losing your freedom and liberties!

If you want the Government to "take care of you", you're living in the wrong country!

You forgot to include criminals as having guns. If you get your wish and law-abiding Americans are disarmed, as the Australians were several years ago, Criminals will have a field day because a large majority of them carry guns that are stolen. The homicide rate would skyrocket because we would not be capable of defending ourselves. Oh, sure....call the police, they have guns. The problem is, the police in nearly every instance, are MORE than one minute away and what is about to happen to you, or anyone else, is going to happen right now. Would YOU want to be in that situation? Believe me when I say this....It can and does happen to people everyday in this country.

Rocco: your comment shows the greatest possible ignorance of history, and of the purpose of the Second Amendment (to acknowledge the natural right of all to defend themselves).

The Constitution doesn't grant this right and cannot take it away. Any law written which claims to take away this right is null and void. Everyone has the right to defend himself, his liberty, and the fruits of his own honest labor. It is a truth our Founders noted as "self-evident."

Crooked governments can pass all the laws they want that violate natural law, but those laws are never justifiable. A good example is slavery, which was legal but was never justifiable. Force, including killing one's master if needed, is justifiable in defense of liberty.. Regardless of law.

Sad that these natural rights are most commonly acknowledged in law immediately after a tyrant is violently overthrown, but as time passes, governments whittle those rights from the law.

The Founders were well aware of this history, where all governments have shown an inability to avoid disarming the people and seizing control of the money.

Rocco, many useful reads are needed to remedy your misunderstanding. Consider Federalist 46 among them.

And to be absolutely clear, let no one confuse my comments with any support for making unprovoked threats of violence, as it appears the person in this news story has done. Making unprovoked threats is not defending one's life, one's iberty, nor one's property.

It seems Rocco is violating his freedom to speak as much as the Aurora shooter violated his 2nd.

It never ceases to amaze me how the 2nd degree (oops, amendment) experts also become prophets - they claim to know what is going to happen if any new laws are passed. Does that come from prolonged exposure to gunpowder? LOL

Is that so Rocco, ever heard of Nazi Germany? Thats where gun control started, why dont you go tell all of those folks how the police and Military should be the only ones to be armed. OOPS thats right, cause they were marched into concentration camps and killed. But you could still talk to those who were LUCKY enough to live through it all.
The JOB of Government IS NOT to protect you, never was, and never should be.

Funny Purple, that NO ONE actually wants to get rid of guns. There are two basic groups.

1. Those who wish to keep their own guns but disarm the masses.
2. Those who wish to allow the masses to remain armed.

History is the story of the latter trying to fight off enslavement by multiple rival groups of the former.

"Yes! Guns for EVERYONE! Guns should be available at the corner vending machine"

A PERFECT example of the irrational emotional straw man argument. If you can show us any 2nd supporters that agrees with that bullshirt post it and I will send $ to your favorite charity.

It is people like you who ruin ANY possible argument you may have against the RTKBA.

describe mentally infirmed...I know of a few cops that would fit the category...

BTW, a note of disambiguation. Mike, "the prosecutor" in favor of the uselessly vague term "gun control," is NOT I. (Patch's federated architecture appears to allow duplicate screen names to post in the same places).

Best I can tell, I saw only this one comment from "prosecutor Mike" in this thread. I have written multiple comments, and the juxtaposition of his with mine must be very confusing to the attentive reader.

What could be more foolish than the statements that:
1. somehow being a "former homicide prosecutor grants" him "unique insight"
2. "In an ideal world, unfettered right to bear arms would work fine"

Our former prosecutor has it exactly backwards.

First, his "unique insight" seems to be that which leads him to think it right for him to carry a concealed weapon while denying that to many or most of us. (Unless his uselessly vague advocacy of "gun control" is radically different from most things which show up under that label.)

Second, in an "ideal world" there would be no use of force against anyone, justifiable or otherwise. It is the very LACK of an ideal world that makes the right to keep and bear arms necessary. And of course, no world will ever be ideal, and the honest and peaceful will ALWAYS face the threat of the dishonest and threatening.

History shows repeatedly that disarming the people is FAR, FAR more dangerous than a freely-armed populace.

I'm with "Mike the former prosecutor", not "Mike the Twisted"

I'm not trying to change the subject, just make an observation about the culture of our country - but we have already seen the effects of an uncontrolled mortgage market - fat cats get what they want (rich) and lots of folks are out in the cold. Regulation was and still is required to protect the general populace. The same thing applies here. Common sense regulation of the dangerous factor will lead to protection for the general populace AS WELL AS those that can responsibly "keep and bear arms."

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness - not DOA, fear, and the pursuit of kill power.

You're not too bright, are you?

http://blackpeoria.wordpress.com/list-of-black-serial-killers/

Sean, it appears you are beating a strawman. (Arguing effectively against a point not actually being made,)

I see very little evidence that anyone has claimed what you refute: namely, that the Founders' writings defended making unprovoked threats, and that the Founders were always right.

To the contrary, I don't see much, if any, defense of the SUSPECT in the story, OTHER than by way of presumption of innocence. Some people have rightly noted that we are working with imperfect information.

What we see vigorously defended is the natural right of all mankind to self defense, enumerated by those sophisticated enough to know that fools and tyrants abuse stories like this one in their campaigns to disarm the citizenry.

Put another way, who is saying it's fine for a man "armed to the teeth" to make unprovoked "threats against his former or even current employer?" I have not said that, and I have not noticed it written elsewhere in the comments. Further, I think virtually everyone if not absolutely everyone here would say such a thing is not fine at all.

As for the Founders' fallibility, it has been mentioned (specifically by me) that the Founders' policy of slavery was hopelessly flawed, in violation of the very natural law which they got right in other places, such as the 2nd Amendment.

So, while your points are true enough in a vacuum, you are refuting something unsaid...beating a strawman.

Why do you always throw in the childish labels Sean? It truly diminishes whatever you may have to say. Many will see that juvenile playground crap and stop reading any further and no one can blame them. I stopped at flat earthers and will not read any further since the credibility of the rest is rightly questioned.

Mike, so exactly why was this man detained? For making threats or owning guns? Or was it both? The fact is, the man hasn't been charged with any crime. He is being evaluated for his mental state. I don't believe the police had probable cause to detain him for the threats he may have made unless there is some hard evidence like a tape recording of his threats or something. And, if the man is released from the hospital after the evaluations, he'll be able to go back to his apartment full of guns and maybe next time he won't talk so much before acting. But the Flat Earthers are okay with the fact that he owns all those guns as long as he doesn't make threats. That is my point.

Joe, people who believe that the what the Founding Fathers wrote over 200 years ago were words written in stone and can not be changed or modified to meet our modern society are Flat Earthers, in my opinion. Do you think the Founding Fathers got anything wrong?

<ahem>, speaking of shortcomings...

Mary, first, please accept my sympathies on your challenges within your family. While I think you describe a very real issue, I don't think one can or should yet say it's THE issue in this context. (While you rightly said "if" this man is unstable, you didn't qualify your statement about what THE [emphasis added] real issue is.)

As for what is "grossly underfunded," that's an interesting discussion. Once upon a time, people were self-reliant save for help from voluntary charity. Now, (speaking of all this gun talk), huge amounts of resources are confiscated by force.

I am curious, are you advocating ever more forced confiscation of your neighbors' resources, in order to manage your own family instead of you making whatever other financial sacrifices it requires? Please understand I'm not saying you are advocating this, but I am asking whose labor you want to see provide the additional funding you desire.

Now, I will admit that IF one accepts the premise that all income is RIGHTLY subject to confiscation by force through tyranny of the majority, then one can then argue what causes merit taking more money from ones neighbors. However, I reject the premise.

As for what to do about "underfunding", I recommend:
1. Vote for, work for, and contribute to REAL causes for limited government (which will free up HUGE amounts of resources)
2. Organize voluntary charity to aid those in need. There will be FAR more $$ available if #1 succeeds.

Instead of just a criminal background check for a firearm and a waiting / cooldown period for a handgun, maybe in order to own a firearm there should be some type of mandatory mental examination and evaluation. Then a mandatory training class on the proper time to use deadly force and how to effectively deliver that deadly force. Like Mary said sure they take his guns and lock him up for a little while, he gets out and fills his minivan full of fertilizer and diesel fuel and drives from his home to the parking garage at the mall of office building and blows the place to pieces. Psychos dont need guns to kill, so banning guns or banning ammo like someone else suggested is pointless.

Amen sister! The main difference between here and Aurora is that this guy made threats and the police followed up. Probable Cause is enough to go investigate.
It's remarkable to me how many jailed criminals are suffering from mental illness who could have been helped before committing the crimes for which they now serve time. Fortunately for the folks at his soon-to-be former employer's, this guy's threats were treated as a call for help, which I hope he will receive.
Mental illness isn't criminal behavior but it can lead to criminal behavior if not treated properly. Without safeguards such as gun registries and background checks, anyone (regardless of need or competency), can go purchase weapons. As long as people believe mental illness is something to be hidden, we won't improve our ability to stop these things before they happen.
I'm all in favor of everyone packing heat if we restricted it to what was available when the 2nd Amendment was written: muzzle-loading flintlocks with one round. I wonder if the framers of the Constitution would have been so cavalier in their wording if they could have envisioned the kinds of firepower available to the masses today and how it would be used.
I'm certain they were thinking about defending their lives and property from invading troops coming from Europe to take back the colonies, not from every day criminals in search of a fast buck or vengeance. Go check your American history and remember the context of the Bill of Rights.

Thanks Shane, and you make an excellent point. I'm glad they hauled him in too, given what we think we know. Here's a case where the system may actually have worked. Which doesn't change one iota the need for the citizenry to be able to be armed. It is pure illogic to think that a person making unprovoked threats of violence has any bearing whether the Second Amendment is appropriate.

Geez you bring out my solution to most of the problems this country has - TAKE THE MONEY OUT OF POLITICS - remove the power of special interests.

In this instance it involves the most powerful lobby in the country - the NRA.

The NRA was a responsible organization for most of its history, but ever since they took to lobbying they have exerted power way above what it should be. Take down the NRA's lobbying power, and that of ALL other special interests. The Citizens United decision must be dissolved if the country is to survive.

Down off soapbox.

As one man's opinion - you really don't know what the H E L L you are talking about - but I have to leave further discussion to another day.

Keep the restaurants clean, don't allow more people in than can get out in an emergency, and serve food that won't make you sick. I'm on the fence about large sugary drinks, but there is a point to that. Enough on restaurants.

Bought off by special interests - keep the money from getting there.

Put another way for you Hal, the regulators are controlled by the government. The government and its cronies in big business (especially banking) are the SAME THING. Look at the guys like Geithner--at the top, they're the same people, bouncing between Goldman Sachs and the Treasury Dept. Look at Dodd-Frank, written by guys who were "Friends of Angelo" at Countrywide. The cat is the cop at the fish market.

You are right that most of the money needs to come out of politics. But it is like saying we need to get the money out of drugs. So long as there ARE drugs, the money will be there. So long as the POWER is in politics, the money will be there too.

The only solution is to take government's POWER away. When there are no favors to buy, no one will buy them.

Again, it's very seductive to wish for an enlightened dictator. But there isn't one. You want to regulate businesses so they produce good? Force them to please consumers, not regulators.

Fox told you that, right?

The housing bubble & collapse was caused by lending institutions packaging mortgages into financial instruments that they did not understand - because it sounded like a good idea and no one told them they couldn't. Now that we know what happens in that environment it's time to insure that it doesn't happen again. You can't just say "Don't do that", you have to regulate it. Don't blame the Fed for that.

Hal- the biggest buyer of those packaged mortgages were Fannie and Freddie- two government sponsored entities. One of the complaints that politicians had was that these "greedy" lenders would do anything to make a buck *except* giving poor people loans to buy houses. The bubble and subsequent collapse was a guarantee the moment the government got involved.

Now, all of that is not to say that the risky financial instruments are not a disaster. They are, we agree on that. But two things made them risky.

1. What was in them
2. Fraud and negligence

Let's start with the latter. I suspect you and I would agree that the crooked bankers should lose their shirts for not knowing what they were buying, and for knowing what they were buying and doing it anyway.. Well, the bankers would have lost nearly all of it if not for the criminal bailouts. And we should have clawed back all the commissions they made on the junk they sold, wittingly and unwittingly.

That said, the financial instruments were just ways of harnessing the golden goose that came from government (through the Fed and taxpayer backed loans). The disgusting mess of CDSs was toxic because of the overvaluing of houses in the market, driven by artificially low rates, oversupply of money, and transference of rish OFF the banks and ONTO the taxpayer. The government sparked the fire AND promised to insure everything that burned down.

Government is the problem. The bankers are right there in bed with government. Take the government power away and the bankers get left with nothing to do but provide banking, instead of getting a license to steal from Congress.

Mike, I think we can have a really good discussion about this - I don't agree with all you say, but you sound reasonable enough to be able to discuss it.

The down side is I don't have the time today, and after 2 days arguing 2nd Amendment issues my brain is not exactly in the best place - I hope you can understand.

So then...Anyone can call the cops and make up a story about something being said in a phone conversation and the forces will come down upon them based on hearsay...this could get interesting if the trend catches on....I believe that perceived law enforcement over stepped their bounds once again...we now live in a police state, feel any safer.

Buck also makes my point for me.

Thanks Buck.

Buck - better than living in a funeral diector state, IMHO...

Talk to the war lords about that Hal...

Buck - Okay, I will - next time I see one.

This will not happen. The courts would catch this and correct it. You would see it comming from both ends. on one hand the flood of people being prosicuted for no crime would not work out too well and on the other hand you would see a flood of civl rights law suits.

Hal, for real (Buck - better than living in a funeral director state, IMHO...)? You would give up your rights and freedom for a little false security? Or am I reading this wrong?

Mike, read the news. The man was detained for his mental state. According to the Baltimore Sun, " Based on his appearance and conversations with him, police said, they sought approval for the emergency evaluation and the search warrant, which they executed the next day."

Mike said "Freedom means living with a certain amount of risk and a certain amount of responsibility".

Mike, you make my original point for me.

I am betting this man becomes the poster child for the gun lovers if he is released from the hospital without charges. They will cry loud - "Watch it! The police are coming to take you away to Spring Grove in order to get your guns!"

Sean, the man was detained for making the threats, regardless of what anyone says. No threats and nobody questions his mental state--nobody's even having this conversation. It's not as if sans any threats, a quirky guy is likely (yet) to be rounded up for detainment on the basis of being quirky. I suspect the police didn't know what to do, didn't have PC (or hadn't yet documented it as completely as they'd like) and took this road because it was something they could do now. Especially in light of Aurora.

But it's an EXTREMELY slippery slope, regardless of whether the police were right to detain him in this way or not. I think your point about PC is a good one. How many people who dislike you have to call you a witch before the troops roll in?

As to your original point which you say I make for you, apologies, but I'm not sure what point you mean exactly. We may well agree.

Mike is a fool.

Mike, my original point contained the "Flat Earthers" statement, which you called a strawman argument, I believe. Well, let me stop beating around the bush and you can decide if you agree with me or not. Here is my point:

We need stronger gun control.

So, there it is. :)

FIFA, giving no rationale nor evidence for his conclusions, is thus far indistinguishable from someone incapable of syllogistic reasoning.

(And I'll wager he likes the offside rule.)

Mike your argument is foolish and extraordinarily weak. You want a body count before the police take action. If someone threatens to shoot you, you should be callin the police. It is called assault.

FIFA said: "Mike your argument is foolish and extraordinarily weak. You want a body count before the police take action. If someone threatens to shoot you, you should be callin the police. It is called assault."

FIFA, it seems as if we are in violent agreement on one point. I have here, NUMEROUS TIMES, said it is a crime to make unprovoked threats and that the police did the right thing by taking it seriously and investigating.

I haven't said a thing about wanting a body count before the police get involved, in fact I have said exactly the opposite.

So, why is it my argument is so foolish and weak? Thus far, the thing you said about threats being a crime I have agreed with long before you posted a comment here. The thing about my wanting a body count first is exactly the opposite of what I said.

To be fair, a little better reading by you would have saved us both the trouble of these last posts. And thus, perhaps a bit more reading before you lob unsupported "fool" bombs around?

My comments about Mike are "dead on" as he would like to say.

I think that that some here believe that "responsibility" means that the government should take some sort of action along the lines of gun control. I also think that mikes comments of responsibility are directed toward the individual. Fact: Most Government gun control does not work. It never has. Most gun control laws are based in fear, not fact. For example: you can go to a gun store and buy a shotgun and all of the ammo (of any type) you want for it and walk out the door. Cash and carry! This is one of if not the most versatile and most destructive weapons a person can use, but you may not go buy a .22 revolver without a background check and a 7 day wait. This law is based on a real world event and the fear that ensued. It has not stopped or slowed crime in any manner. Why do we have this law? What did it solve? Now a bad guy needs to wait 7 days before they shoot you? It does not work! How do you control guns without restricting rights? Common sense laws are needed. Laws that solve real wide spread issues. Mikes point might be that we all need to assume responsibility for our safety and do it in a legal responsible way? I can’t speak for him, but that is what I got out of it.
If someone has shot you dead, how are you going to call the police to report an assault? Defend yourself, and then call the cops!

MIke, I don't believe the police have any evidence the man actually threatened anyone or not. So the question that remains unanswered is if the police file no charges and the man is found mentally unstable, should he lose his right to bear arms?

But Kim, the gun crowd's argument is unraveling. The fact is this man has not been detained for any crime as of yet. Police need actual hard evidence for that. They detained this man because he appeared mentally unstable. Well, the gun crowd is starting to question the entire episode now. Why? Because they believe police will soon come after their guns by labeling them "unstable".

Kim, I would ask you to read Federalist 46. It's only about 10 pages. Not an easy read in the 21st century (language has grown simpler) but worth it.

The right to keep and bear arms applies not only to allow protection from thugs and murderers, but also to defend against tyranny from abroad or from one's own government. So, while opening oneself up to "scrutiny" (presumably, search without PC in violation of the 4th Amendment, among other things) might seem okay in the context of arming oneself against robbers, it falls flat in the context of protecting against tyranny.

I too commend the police for taking it seriously--given the limited info we have, it SOUNDS like it was the right call. (Which changes none of my other points, btw.)

Responsibility is instinctive and natural...just like the rights we were born with. Care is an even more important element to gun ownership...you have to care about other human beings and their rights.
My right to own and carry is what protects your right to tell me I can't.

Very well said, Tom.

Tom, if the police file no criminal charges involving the threats but the man is found to be mentally unstable by the doctors at the hospital, should he lose his right to bear arms? I mean, he was found mentally unstable after he made his gun purchases and the only reason he was found mentally unstable was the cops dragged him off to the hospital.

"dumb comments", "some guns", are you just stupid or what?

Maybe he would have gone postal, maybe not. You are naive.

To Sean:
Part of the State application to buy any fire arm asks about your mental health and if you have ever been institutionalized both voluntary and non-voluntary. State records can be checked to see if anyone has been institutionalized non-voluntary. So if he is found to be "unstable" his weapons can be taken away from him. On the other side of that if he is found to be "stable" his weapons legally should be returned to him.

To FIFA:
My point about maybe or maybe not a plot existed was to point out that "officials" claim to have folied a massmurder plot but give no details of this plot...but on the other hand give irrelivant details such as he did not possess a weapons permit. Villifying a person based on conjecture and misinformation is a slippery slope.I haven't seen enough "facts" to make a call one way or the other. My concern is how the situation gets handled. The rights given to us are to be given equally. This does not mean that if you "legally" exercise one particular right that you give up any of the others. The security guy during the Atlanta Olympics had his life ruined because he seemingly fit a profile and facts didn't seem to matter.

Kim, The term "mentally unstable" is used broadly with sweeping strokes. How could this determination be made in a fair way? Seems like a matter of opinion that could be easily challenged. I don't believe that our government has the authority to create or make such a potentially life threatening and changing determination.
The government struggles now more than ever just to fail at maintaining their own responsibilities to the citizens. Such a broad sweep of grey zone authority would only add insult to injury. The very people that you deem to be mentally unstable might view you as mentally unstable because of your actions and thoughts. Should you be subjected to the governments wrath because of an accusation....people are very different naturally. I happen to think that many police officers have a similar mind set or mentality to bad criminals...they're crazy in many instances, see the abuse on hundreds of video's available. Should they be armed by the government?

Buck- that seems like an attempt to rationalize doing nothing. Why is it better to allow this to keep happening -- I mean once there's a pile of bodies then it won't be a matter of opinion any more right? You seem willing to give anyone who wants assault weapons and makes threats the benefit of the doubt-- because we don't know for sure

Should mentally unstable human beings not be allowed to operate a motor vehicle as well?

Kim, you seem to shy away from the government intrusion issues...the government is out of control...they can't manage themselves, for some reason you tend to linger in denial of these very important facts. It's not about your vision of assault weapons or my vision of freedom, It's about seeking and maintaining balance in law and government. A broken government can not control freedom...not going to happen.
None of the numbers add up to any of your arguments so you now attempt to put words in my mouth. I have never mentioned any type of assault weapon or said anything about making threats....surrender is near.

Frank I have read all of your postings on this and other Patch blogs to determine that your soul purpose is to attempt to stir shit. That would make you a shit stirrer. I have offered to provide you with some education but you refuse to accept it.
You have surrendered to this topic and therefore future posts from you are not valid and have no meaning....keep trying though....kind of amusing at this point.

Mike, my original point was an apparently not so clever attempt to show the absurdity of the gun crowd's argument. Obviously I missed the mark, in your opinion. My point is and was that we need more gun control. To continue debating about what I did or did not mean would go around and around forever.

But I would love to hear your answer on my new question:

If the police file no criminal charges involving the threats but the man is found to be mentally unstable by the doctors at the hospital, should he lose his right to bear arms?

Sean, I did not debate anything but what you wrote, which was a strawman, just like I said. Perhaps you wrote poorly what you were thinking.

To your new question, I would first say err on the side of 'no' (burden of proof on the state). Nothing new there, except to those who presume guilt first.

Second, and more important, what does "found to be mentally unstable" mean? By whom? The devil is in the details. It would be nice if there were a perfect bell on the cat, but who's going to put it there?

Mike, okay, I'll debate my original point, if you'd like, but I am not going to hunt and peck on this Patch discussion thread for our posts. I will post my new comments at the bottom and if you respond you can either "reply" or add a new comment yourself.

The old terms of service defense, weakest of all arguments. You should probably go back to 1st grade.

FIFA, it wasn't a defense, it was a friendly suggestion. If you don't read and just want to call people names, you are wasting everyone's time.

And this:

Neil B
3:22 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012

They may have thwarted nothing. There is no way to know. Basically they have a guy for making threats. I hope they don't hurt themselves patting themselves on the back.

And this:

Neil B
7:37 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012

I don't think bringing him in is the wrong thing to do. All of the posturing by the police and the media is what annoys me. What happened to innocent until proven guilty. Think about the Duke lacrosse players. Their lives were ruined over a lie. The boss may be the problem. We don't know yet.

So, Mike, I was in fact responding to what people did post.

Any comments?

Sean, gotta run, but very quickly since you took the time:

The gap between those examples you just gave "making threats" and people saying "I'm gonna kill you" is in the context of the latter. The latter example is sometimes a very real threat, usually not.

It's not that the Founders said it was fine to make real threats, nor that anyone claimed that. The person who brought up the "I'm gonna kill you" example was speaking of the case when it isn't a real threat.

I believe the Founders would say that making REAL, unprovoked threats was a crime. Susan's point was, I think, about the uncertainty of what was intended. More about imperfect information and a presumption of innocence. Not about the Founders defending people who make REAL threats.

Does that clear up what I meant for you? Hope so, I gotta bolt.

Regards,

Mike

Mike, thanks for the response. My point here is that my original statement was not made out of the blue as you suggested. I made the statement based on comments posted.

I've got to go too.

Now I will give you that my original statement may not have been written very clearly. I maybe could have presented it diffrently. But, it was not made out out the blue.

Mike,

Maybe you will read this later.

This portion of the debate has to end somewhere and I suggest now is a good place. I am in no position to debate what others may or may not have meant by their statements. I can only tell you how I read them and what I was basing my statement on and thus, hopefully, proving it was not made out of thin air.

Over and out.

Half of the no names on these blogs are most likely cops playing profile games..

"Personally, I prefer the right to walk down the street and not worry about somebody springing from the bushes with a Glock,"
They could just as easily spring from the bushes with a knife or club and stab or beat you to death. This is where gun ownership comes in, you got your glock you defend yourself. You could be 5' tall and 98 lbs, and the would be robber 7' tall 300 lbs, the gun just equalized your situation and enabled YOU to defend yourself. Criminals will get guns even if you take all guns away from the people who own guns legally, its a little thing called the black market. They tried this before, only with alcohol, it only made criminals richer running it into the USA.

Not if you know what your doing it aint Frank, its just as easy, maybe alot more of a mess though.

Frank, you DONT get mugged at a distance, its up close and personal.

Frank, I dont think you actually have a point . I was talking about defending yourself from a mugger "someone springing out form the bushes", Not too sure what your talking about, but ya sound lost.

Purple: The population of Canada is 34,030,589; the population of Great Britain is 61,113,205 and the population of the USA is 314,046,228. Anyone with a shred of common sense can see that, with the USA, having a population of 280,015,699 MORE people than Canada and a population of 252,933,023 MORE people than Great Britain, will naturally have a higher homicide rate that either of those two countries.
In 2007, per 100,000 people, there were 5.7 murders in the United States and 2.03 in the United Kingdom. The murder rate in the UK is almost three times lower than the USA by using the respective population counts. HOWEVER, if the population of Great Britain was the same as the population of the USA, the murder rate of Great Britain would be 6,375+/- murders per 100,000 people, realistically using their current rate of murders.
In 2007, per 100,000 people, there were 1.9 murders in Canada. Using those statistics per 100,000 to equal the population of the USA, Canada would have a murder rate of 5,966+/- per 100,000 people. Canada has, within the past year or two, finally rescinded some of their antiquated gun laws and murder rates have dropped.
Hopefully, your life and those of your loved ones are never threatened by one, or more, of those mentally unstable psychopaths that are out there. If so, I hope that you are armed to stop the attack. Go to: http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/
So, how is it that the Second Amendment is bad for the USA?

Frank your nuts, a trick or theater dont jump out of the bushes with a club or knife and hold you up in a dark alley.. All of these what if's.. What if the moon was made of cheese.

FRANK: It's obvious that YOU do not understand.
By the way, you are a crude, crass person with your destiny only being to insult as many people by using 3rd grade name-calling mentality. I, for one, DO NOT appreciate it, and, no doubt, others on this blog don't either......

HWC said "The only danger in this is, what would keep them from claiming everyone is mentally unstable".

HWC, that is my point and the the gun loving crowd must defend it or their position begins to crumble.

If I know my neighbor has a house full of guns, can I call 911 and say he has verbally threatened me so the police will take him away for evaluation in the hope that he is found to be mentally unstable and thus have his guns taken away?

HWC said "But with the possibility of verbal threats, I feel the Police did what they should have done...".

I've read the papers file by police with the judge (viewable on Baltimore Sun website) and they don't indicate any proof that they have that the man actually did make threats. They only state that he made them against a person and that person is afraid because the man owns guns. So the police took the man away based on his mental status.

This should give the conspiracy theorists great pause. The government has a new weapon to take away your guns.

sean, you better hope they do or he will come gunning for you, I guess your choice at that point would be to drop him before he drops you. This is the world all these guys think they love, me I spent time as a sniper so I already know there is no defense other then taking the guys away from folks. If all these gun boys get their way I guess I can just re-arm and start practicing again, but if my gun loving neighbor even looks threatening I guess I will have to act first, self defense ya know

HWC, you've got a conflict here. On the one hand you state that the police did the right thing here, i.e., they took a man who someone claimed made threats into custody to evaluate his mental status. On the other hand you say it could be a problem if the government starts "portraying eveyone as mentally incompetent just cause they say so".

So, the position you must defend is either you agree the police can take people away for evaluation based on reports of threats made or you don't. Which is it?

tough to prove...if at all...no one would be charged with anything in this case and the gun collector would most likely have his rights violated and would get unfairly screwed.

HWC, how do you prove that the neighbor didn't threaten me? It can't be done. So, if cops are dragging people away on the say so of others, which, as far as I can tell, is what happened in this case, I'd say you gun lovers have a real problem. Either you have to defend the guy making "threats" or you have to support police dragging people away on the say so of others. It's a tight squeeze for you, I'm sure.

Thats true Buck. Sean didnt seem to grasp what i was trying to say so had to use an extream.. Our Government has shown us all one thing they will do what ever they want no matter what the people want. Do i trust them? About as far as i could pick a car up and throw it.

So if you want to rise up against them are you planning on going out in a blaze of glory?? I don't think the Founders envisioned a government who could fight back with nukes, chemical weapons, drones etc etc

It's not a matter of rising up, that's too left or right. It's simply a matter of standing firm in seeking to maintain a fair degree of balance regarding government control over our lives....History has in fact proven that too much government intrusion suppresses society and leads to very bad outcomes .....over and over and over....

Oh ...and by the way Kim, I don't believe that those weapons you described should even be on the planet...

What freedom do the victims have?

You're grasping now...

Can't answer it can you? Because you are content to put others lives at risk every day so you can have your "rights" and there can be no limitation on those rights either, Well, all citizens have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and gun owners like Holmes and Prescott are interfering with that

Kim...now that is a really dumb statement to make... the more armed citizens there are, the safer society will be...naturally. I have never put anyone in danger by my actions, I care very much about the well being of others. My rights are mine without having any effect on other human beings.
My right to own and carry protects your right to tell me I can't. Pretty simple.

All he has to do is recant those statements at the hospital and they cannot hold him. What happend to Habeus-Corpus (sp?)? Seem like we shit on the Constitution whenever it fits our political needs.

Nice contribution. You really reached deep for that one!

Sheriff Richard Mack would beg to differ with you, in fact most cops believe that an armed citizenry would lead to a more peaceful and tolerant society....instinctively...

Buck-- the police would NOT have supported the idea of armed citizens inside the theater reacting to the shooter. They believe it would have caused further mayhem and confusion since the gun shots would have been coming from more than one direction into the crowd and since the shooter used tear gas to create confusion. PLease don't allow your own self interest to overide common sense

No one wants to talk about it because it does not fit the narrative that guns are all ways bad and access to them needs to be more tightly controlled.

The folks who argue against guns argue with emotion because the facts can be inconvenient.

It does not fit their narrative or further their cause, therefore it is ignored. What people fail to take into account is that these mass shootings, while tragic are a very small statistical blip. That comes as little comfort to those involved, but the reality is they are an anomaly.

How do you explain the Swiss, every able bodied male has a assault rifle in the house.

Statistics lie and liars quote statistics. They (statistics) are basically like assholes - everyone has one.

My statistics come from the 2009 United Nations Crime Trend Statistics, and I would agree that because this is an annual survey, data may be warped. However, in view of the nature of this data, no country is going to "brag" about their homicide rate, or the number of weapons. If you care to download and read the global statistics you will see that there is a definite correlation between the number of weapons per 100 people and the homicide rate.
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html

A homicide is, generally, a dliberate act.
Fatal auto accidents are, generally, not deliberate, but caused by bad reaction, carelessness, stupidity, or mechanical failure.

Chris,

Alcohol kills 75,000 people per year that is twice the number of people killed by guns. No one wants to address the issue on alcohol.

Frank said "But seriously, are you trying to claim that no one is addressing the health effects of excessive alcohol consumption?"

Perhaps, but if you recall, prohibition was a massive failure that fueled organized crime and ironically, gun violence.

Frank a few points in response to you comments about alcohol:
Your analogy with pouring alcohol down peoples throats is a bit flaud in that shooting a gun does not automatically kill and mame people it is the misuse of either that causes the bedlum. There have been many documented DWIs involving buses, trains and driving into a crowd of pedestrians that killed and wounded large numbers. Yes, alcohol is tightly controlled and of course no one that is not supposed to have NEVER gets it. As pointed out earlier prohibition failed miserably.

And yes, there are some saying all guns everywhere should be illegal.

Not true Eastsider - everyone wants to address alcohol consumption - the more you drink the more taxes the State 'earns'. Kinda like the Casinos. The more you gamble and cann't afford food and medicine - the more we earn in gambling revenues.

Get real Frank. Alcohol is not now nor has it ever been tightly controlled. What is controlled is the taxes that are collected on it. Parents routinly provide access to alcohol for their kids and friends. Once the bottle, keg, can is sold very little control is exercised.

"If guns are less available legally these people with criminal intent may find another method to commit murder?"

"Guns certainly make it easier to kill a larger number of people, however most gun crime is individual."

Okay, but when these cases (such as Aurora) occur, it is mass killing by guns. How do you plan on reducing mass killing by guns besides keeping the guns out of the perpetrator's hands? If they are obtaining guns legally and there are clear indicators in retrospect that they shouldn't have been allowed to obtain those guns, an incremental policy change to prevent others with those indicators from obtaining guns would be a step in the right direction, no?

What the shooting in Colorado has in common with so many others is a person with mental problems. That should be the focus. We need to find an effective way to ensure that people with mental health issues cannot legally obtain firearms, while ensuring that we do not infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens.

Just because many drunk driving incidents occur on after 11:00pm on weekends, does not make it reasonable to stop every driver and conduct a field sobriety test.

All I am sayin is that the response to these problems needs to be reasonable, and focused on the rel problem, mental illness.

Couldn't agree more with Chris W. You cann't control duis when you print the places and times of the sobriety checkpoints in Wednesdays newspaper. If they really want to control DUIs why are the secondary offenses that require that you give the police a reason for pulling you over BEFORE they can cite you for a DUI offense? It's all about money and revenues right now. No one cares about the underlying issues.

Good comment Chris

After serving in the military in a lot of foreign countries and being discharged the solder is mandated to keep his weapon at home in the event that they are needed in an emergency call-up. Truly a citizen army. They have no problems compared to us. Again - address the underlying social reasons or those bent on retaliation will find a way.

The ends NEVER justify the means. In this case they got it right. BUT don't give them card-blanch to do whatever they want. For once they did their jobs.

If you want to believe that wanting the police to investigate a man like Prescott who lives a few minutes from me is intolerant of gun rights-- than I am intolerant of gun rights. I am not in favor of taking every one's guns away but allowing no common sense regulation has gone too far. I agree with you that mentally unstable individuals should be screened-- but I also think the Assault weapon ban should be reinstituted-- so that these incidents are not commonplace

Again where did I ever say that they should not investigate this man? They certainly should; however, I disagree with banning weapons simply because of the abuse by a tiny fraction of gun owners that it is so small it cannot be measured.

We need to solve the problem which is crazy people owning guns. Overreacting out of fear and ignorance does not help matters.

Chris----When did I say that you did??I was not addressing you personally. But read the comments on here and plenty of people think its overreach. I can tell you that this guy lives in walking distance from my family and maybe he's ok but people on here defending his right to his arsenal his threats and his privacy is what is very unsettling. Its as thought many believe that no one has a right to prevent another tragedy because it might interfere with a gun owners freedom

Ok. Sorry if I took that personally.

There are a lot of questions that remain unanswered. I think it important to investigate this incident thoroughly, but not to over react.

Frank, regardless of whether what you say is true, it is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY irrelevant to my points. It has no bearing whatsoever. Zero. Lott could be a fabricated person and it wouldn't change my points, nor their validity.

Frank, I repeat. Regardless of whether what you say about Lott is true, it is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY irrelevant to my points. It has no bearing whatsoever. Zero. Lott could be a fabricated person and it wouldn't change my points, nor their validity. My point is that the people here pushing stats are doing so based not on their belief in the rigor of the stats, and even less on their understanding of the stats or their rigor. People are pushing stats that coincide with their beliefs, rather than forming their beliefs based on any of the stats.

When you do it that way, and when there are plenty of stats of all sorts to pick from, the stats discussions are simply absurd.

Further, the professor I mentioned came out and admitted he didn't even care if more guns produced a safer, less violent, less crime-riddem world. He said, ineffect, "do we really want to live in a world with less crime, if it means there are all these scary guns around?"

Arguing about Lott's research/integrity has zero bearing on this. Further, if you do want to argue about that, consider that some if not all of the criticisms cited of Lott note (though you omit it) that the particular elelments which he is accused of inventing have little bearing on the conclusions of his popular book. They are tangential at best. Not my words--just from sources cited to discredit Lott.)

But again, that's an aside. Lott could not even exist and it doesn't affect my point one iota.

ok keep your rhetoric. just don't get on patch and blog when you do not know what you are talking about. Worst gun killings in America? Chicago. Wow, who is surprised that Chicago has the most out of control gun killings because it has the MOST gun control laws in the country? Lastly mister tindel, the brother of one of the victims spoke to an msnbc reporter and instantly refuted him concerning gun laws. He aptly told him that the person would have done harm in any manner available, regardless of gun laws. An example of this mister tindel would have been if he had drove his car into the theater and exploded all the bombs that he had at his disposal. Most curiously mister tindel, you do not once mention where was the fbi and homeland security in investigating this man based on the amount of items purchased that could be used in explosive devices. Oh snap, mister tindel we have laws regarding those purchases. So why mister tindel, didn't your regulations and laws work to stop this man once he made those purchases? My bad, it proves the point that government regulations rarely do their job. See Bernie Madoff and the SEC for further reference, or maybe Freddie and Fannie.

Take a long stare into the mirror Frank and you will see what a horses ass looks like.

Keswick is owned by Bozuto (sp?) corporation. The same developers that are building at the Nevar site. Think it will be any different there? I used to live there in Crofton. It's relatively a nice place to live for an apartment complex.

You have surrendered Frank...lack of education begins with a yawn in the classroom..I understand..

Would not have happened that way if the guy was not a nutsack.
Frank, don't want a firearm, don't have one. Offer the same courtesy to others.

An example of government over reach at an interesting level...^

Man believes income tax is unconstitutional. Man found certifiably nuts. Man posts on Patch as Buck Harmon. Who listens to him, other nuts. Say it ain't so, Buck.

That's an odd way to surrender FIFA, but I'll accept it anyway... you always seem to run out of facts to back your view and then devolve to these surrender statements...you and Frank could be a tag team of losers with nothing of substance to offer..
You are finished once again...surrender is always inevitable for the un educated within these blogs.

Another $ "Buck" for me. True or false $, you believe income taxes are unconstitutional? I see you avoided the question? Do I need to copy previous posts of yours? A little Dial soap for you to come clean, $$?

One last chance to redeem yourself FIFA....lets see what you are made of.
The 16th amendment was never fully ratified....can you please provide everyone with the proof that it was? Pretty simple task even for a no name in surrender....

Ah $$, feels good to show all what you believe down deep. A tax protester is $$. Once you are there Buckaroo no one cares what you think except the other loonies.

FIFA ...I have assigned you to a task....man up or surrender to the truth once again.
Show me ...provide me with the proof that the 16th Amendment was fully ratified by the states . You seem to be failing once again..

Buckaroo, the proof has been provided many times before, as you well know. Many tax protesters before you have taken the same claims to court and ended up in jail. The more you talk the dumber you look, please keep posting, everyone is laughing at you.

You are big time wrong again FIFA... no one has ever proven that the 16th was fully ratified..you sure surrender easily for such a wannabe smart guy. Your general statements contain no proof... shut me up with the truth or remain in surrender...no cop outs this time ...do it!

No need. Another $ for me. Please just keep talking. No one will ever take you serious again. I heard the moon is made of green cheese too? Have you heard anything Buckaroo?

For those easily bored one can go to Wikipedia to read about Buckaroo's arguments. Then don't pay your income taxes and go to court and watch what happens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

You have failed again FIFA the link provides no proof of the ratification...you get a c- fot the effort though.... pull the fact out of that maze of government propaganda for us.... should be clear as a bell if the 16th was in fact ratified. You'd make a good IRS agent though... C-..at best.

Go away.

Well now that you've put that so eloquently, and with so much reason and purpose, I should obviously listen to you. I wasn't really directing my comment at anyone in particular but I guess if you're going to take offense to it, you feel as though it was directed at you. Don't strain one of your fingers in your efforts to show all these people what's what! That would be a tragedy for your reign of success thus far.

Short and sweet. If I need a lecture I'll call my mommy.

Sorry, I didn't realize that was too many words for you. I should've known anyone wasting this much time here wouldn't be ready for that many sentences at once.

Go butt into a thread elsewhere and learn some manners.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOGWbzUM-y8

I guess I would have better manners if the world didn't spend it's time on the internet calling other people "nuts" and finding new and exciting ways to insult people's intelligence. It's a sad state of affairs but you learn from what you know and thanks to people like you, this is what I know. I will be sure to do plenty of butting here and all over the place.

Fictional feel good internet points for a Pee-Wee Herman video!

Don't like it here Ryan? Then go away, as originally stated.

It started for me this way too Ryan....a flaw with all Patch blogs..

And Ryan once you voice opinions on subjects we/they will go after them. Otherwise your lecturing should go elsewhere. Take a stand or go away. As some would say man-up.

Never claimed to not like it here. In fact, I'm really enjoying the riveting discussions you're having above. There a certain joy in knowing that neither of you is going to make the other one change their minds and yet you keep trying and trying and trying like a dog that just doesn't quite understand how an electric fence works. The internet is a place where everyone can feel smart, if they just believe they are. Pure magic.

YEAH RYAN BE A MAN

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG7jTAGliyY

Though I see you would like to imply that in some way my "manhood" is at stake, I remain unaffected. See, I realize that whether I agree with you or with him, my opinion would be wasted. The other party will try to convince me I'm wrong, I'll argue, I will refuse to agree and both sides will leave feeling like they've really proven themselves. I, on the other hand, would rather see how upset you get about a comment you easily could have ignored.

Once you believe crazy stuff like Buckaroo he blames the messenger. Buck is simply nuts, unless you also believe income taxes are unconstitutional. What do you say Ryan?

I say two things:
1. He's the one here who didn't flip out at my original comment and assume it was directed at him. It was actually directed at both of you, as most of the following comments have been but one of you flipped out and one of you didn't...interesting.
2. Corbin is racking up all kinds of fictional feel good points right now!

As for my opinion on income taxes I will retain my position outside of your little political debate up there.

One thing you will learn Ryan as you grow into manhood, idiots need to be called out when they open their mouth. On the Patch we have people like Buck who believe income taxes are unconstitutional. We have Birthers and global climate change deniers. We have others who believe gays should be stoned to death.

Silence only emboldens them, they are nuts.

You have no opinion on income taxes?? Were you neutered at birth?

Keep going with the attempts at insulting my manhood. You've almost caused me to reassure myself that I am, in fact, a male, several times already. One more and you might actually do it.
You don't seem to grasp a very simple concept here. There are much worse things people could be doing than expressing their opinions on the internet. There are people out there, right now, probably doing some of those things you just described and you know what you're doing to combat these things? You're typing away in an effort to show the world what an angel you are because of your humanitarian opinions. Don't agree with some of those things? That's great, neither do I. Think you're going to change anyone's opinion here? Not going to happen but by all means, keep trying.

Said the person afraid to use a real name... you don't have time to make these pointless jib a jab comments FIFA...I have given you an assignment to complete... get with it ... it's your only hope at redemption ...show me the ratification or remain in surrender..

Perhaps. I've always had an inkling that the part of your body which influences your ability to have an opinion on income taxes is the testicles.
It's a damn good thing you missed the part where I simply stated I was going to keep my opinion to myself to avoid more of your horrid wrath of righteousness.

Angel, I'm not. Just trying to get you to grow a pair and take a stand. You refuse to take a stand. Your friends now know too. Have a great day.

All these testicle references in regards to my refusal to state my opinion. It seems a little sexist for a humanitarian, don't you think? I mean after all, are women incapable of having opinions because they do not have "a pair".
I do enjoy that fact that you took my advice and gave it another shot. I'm sorry to inform you that I have still not been forced to check and see if I am a male, but it was worth another shot.
There. I took a "stand". Or was that the wrong stand? Shall we argue about how the stand I took was not the right one for you?

Bye Ryan, you can always adopt.

Adopt? Adopt what? Adopt a dog? Adopt a woman?! Are you saying that the adoption of women should be okay because they don't have a "pair"?!
I sure am glad I earned my pair (at least that's what I'll infer from your decision to prematurely say goodbye to me, rather than let me in on this whole testicles=opinion thing). The world sounds rough for people who never got themselves a "pair".

see? Ronald here is totally into it.

Yup, he make you sound like you have a high pitched voice.

Did he? I didn't think he made my voice sound like anything since he didn't do an impression of me or anything but either way, I appreciate Ronald and all the squeakiness he puts in my voice.

you're confusing high pitched voice with incredible hulk

No video for that one? I'm ashamed :(

Only problem is Ronald posts on every topic with little consistency.

Look man, you didn't have to go and kill the moment. Ronald was excited, I got excited, everything was good. Maybe he does it everywhere but so what? This is MY moment!

Okay Ryan, just for you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnTmBjk-M0c

Oh god man....you just won the day. I don't know what that means exactly but you may take comfort in the fact that you've won the DAY.

Mandatory minimum of 7, I believe.

Whatever buck you've surrendered to this topic.

Come on Corbin...give us something good to multipass along...no surrender here...

Still waiting for proof that the 16th was fully ratified.. does anyone know what that means, or are apathetic sheeple the norm for no names here...

Proof? You want proof? You can't HANDLE the proof!

I'd like the opportunity to try...

Buckaroo, this is where you have got it back asswards. You have to prove the 16th amendment is invalid, not the other way around. Or go to jail, do not pass go. You throw out falsehoods and ask others to disprove your lies. Are you really that stupid? Never mind, yes you are, dumb question on my part.

Alright...well that wasn't supposed to go down like that. I was hoping you'd get scared by my use of the caps lock key in the middle of that sentence and surrender to my will.
Don't worry, my lack of proof stems from my general lack on interest but keep at it, I think FIFA is going to get there eventually, as soon as he's done making sure his testicles are firmly attached to his body for fear of them falling off and leaving him without an opinion.

FRANK, Frank, frank....you have no business here..you surrendered long ago...of course, if you can provide proof that the 16th was fully ratified you might...just might have an opportunity to begin redemption....have at it !

Ok Steve... I guess you would like the opportunity to provide proof of your statement..Of course you can do that if it really was.
911 was sad but please provide proof that the 16th was ratified ... lets see what another no name is made of.... bet you can't do it...

Yeah steve come on, you've clearly surrendered this topic.

Surrender Steve, another buck for me!

Spoons don't kill people, sugary cereals that cause diabetes kill people!

When dealing with a few of these no name posters I maintain a bit of a smile.
FIFA brought up the fact that I openly question authority regarding income tax law.
He really has no idea of my stand or knowledge of the topic but is quick to cast un educated labels....it's the best he has always had to offer. He takes the bait every time , followed by a few good wiggles to surrender...just like catchin crappy.
It is the responsibility of every citizen to always question authority... that's what Americans do. If there were substance to the no name sheeple they would not hide behind a false identity.

That is the best comment that you've made yet Corbin Dallas...I will multipass it along as truth even though it has nothing to do with gun control.

Buck this one goes out to you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RJG3_smRTY

Ryan, in all honesty it is important to understand all of someone's beliefs as certain of those beliefs cross the line into craziness wherein I must think you are crazy. I have 4 of those beliefs off the top of my head. Birthers, global warming deniers, 16th amendment deniers, and 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Once you go there I have to question your sanity. Buck is a tax protester and therefore crazy. He might poop his pants though as I agree he is correct about the Patriot Act as a disgusting violation of our civil rights.

@FIFA
Ah. I love it. The old, "if you don't agree with me you must be crazy."

People who are this absolute have some control issues I think.

Now if you disagree with me, I may believe your uninformed, uneducated or maybe just not very bright. But I would not consider you to be crazy.

Is that why you've tried to desperately to know what my point of view is? So you can label me as "crazy" or "sane" for agreeing or disagreeing with you?
Stop labeling people. Stop being the opinion police. You've spent your time hiding behind insults and shots at the intelligence or manhood of those you're supposed to be having a conversation with. I say that with no intention of saying he is any better than you in that regard. If you want to have a conversation with someone about their beliefs, stop hiding behind your insults and have a conversation. He asked you a question and rather than answering it, you continued to tell him he's crazy.
You think he's crazy? That's great. Nobody cares and it bears no effect on whether you're "right" or "wrong".

From the bullpen comes Chris slinging mud. Problem with Chris is which of my premises do you agree/disagree with? Show your intelligence or lack thereof, or are you immasculated like Ryan? I bet you are both the same with the count on the hitter 0-2, no balls, two strikes?

@Ryan, as you are afraid to have an opinion why don't you just go home to mama? Same with Chris. Are you both Birthers, is that it? It is okay to come out of the Birther closet.

Once again, you completely fail at insulting me and saying anything intelligent. I RESPECT other people's opinion. I keep mine to myself cause I could care less what any of you think about any of this. I have my opinions and if they're not yours, that's cool. If they are, that's cool too. The fact that you have to reassure yourself of your manhood by pushing your ideas on other people, in a completely unintelligent manner, just tells me that you're insecure or unsure about something. You fail to see anything but what you want to see. You want me to believe I don't have an opinion, whatever that actually mean, when I've told you several times why I refuse to share mine but either you don't know how to read or just ignore that because you're too busy thinking about what creative metaphor you're going to use to tell me I don't have balls. You sure are interested in my balls for some reason. I can't really make myself any more clear to you and yet, somehow, you still have absolutely no clue what it is I'm saying. I could care less what Buck's opinion is, he's a better human being than you could possibly be based on the fact that you feel the need to personally attack people simply because you have some kind of problem that prevents you from seeing anything but what you think is right.

Ah Ryan, I could care less what you believe........ Oops, I forgot, you have no beliefs. You are amoral. Too bad, count is now 0-3, you struck out. You should go back to the rookie leagues where you came from.

I see we're continuing with the baseball metaphors. You must be an expert on the subject and how to use it to make lame attempts to degrade people.
Once again, I will assume you have read the words I typed but completely failed to comprehend their meaning. I read the comments posted on this thread before I posted on it. I know how you act toward people who don't hold the same opinions as you. I've got much better things to do than try to prove to someone online that they're "wrong". For example, I can take that same someone, make a very strong effort to leave him completely in the dark about what my opinion actually is and watch him struggle to find something useful to say to me. Your world is black and white. Even if my opinion were aligned with yours, I would humbly keep it to myself because I would rather "have no balls", as you have so elegantly put it, than associate myself in any way with someone who doesn't have a single clue how to have a conversation in a respectful manner with someone who disagrees with them.
You want to know what I think the problem with gun control is? People are too ignorant, stupid, disrespectful, and immature to know how to talk to someone who they disagree with. If it's not a gun, it's a knife and if not that, then bare hands but the fact of the matter is, you're so caught up in yourself, you would rather degrade others than listen to them.

Ryan, you bore me. Good night.

Sorry, I didn't intend to bore you with my logic. Maybe you're just tired because you've spent all evening trying to come up with an intelligent response to anything I've said and failed on all accounts. Give your brain a little rest and maybe when you get up tomorrow, you'll be able to say something useful.

Buck get over it. You are not important, like a period on the end of a sentence. You are the definition of hypocrisy. You only complain about "no-names" who disagree with your nuttiness. No name nuts that agree with you are great? Hypocrite.

Here comes the knucklehead Martin. Congratulations, king of the Toilet Bowll.

So John West Martin apparently a homophobic bigoted thing. I sincerely hope you have used your real name, but I doubt it. Your mouth is your filth and all can see that. You belong back in the septic system where you have crawled out of that sewer. You make your followers proud of your near illiterate ramblings. Keep asking as the smell permeates the Patch for all to smell where it comes from.

You just spent hours finding new and exciting ways to talk about balls and sewage...is that more appropriate than some simple four letter words?

Does he get to keep his guns and ammo?

He should be able to keep his current weapons, depending on the disposition of his charges he may not be able to purchase additional weapons. He will be able to purchase ammunition. Getting his weapons back may be difficult even though there is no legal reason to not return them to him. Most likely they will be held for "safe keeping" until the disposition of his charge(s).

He has been "involuntarily committed". He can't keep his firearms.

He was on "commited" he was held for mental evaluation. The report on those findings have not been released. He can be kept for observation without being comitted until Friday.

TYPO: He was not "comitted" he was.......

He was involuntarily committed. It doesn't matter if it was for 1 day or 1 year.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/copycat-joker-committed-after-threats-20120728-232tp.html

The request from PGCOPD for him to be taken in for evaluation was granted by a Judge and has yet to be ammended to have him legally committed. The official request is a form of "exparte" to give immediate temporary relief in an emergency situation. There is an official hearing within a period of time (by this Friday in this case) to see if the temporary status has merit to be made into a legal commitment.

Hey Neil B,
And anyone else that thinks law enforcement overreacted in this case.
Was it an over reaction with the University of Maryland student who claimed he was going to "kill enough people to make it national news." was arrested and charged? Come to find out he didn't even own any guns at all yet people were still AT FEAR FOR THEIR SAFETY. This kids post crated fear on campus just as Mr. Prescott's phone call calling himself "a joker" and threatened to "load his guns and blow everyone up" at his Pitney Bowes office. Ever thought that if the Aurora Colorado shooter had made a public threat like these two did that there might not be 12 people dead and another 58 wounded? I hope that every law enforcement agency takes any threat serious enough to investigate it.

He was guilty until proven innocent. That is not how our system works. He made a comment to a friend of his and it was over heard. I never said I was against bringing him in to talk to him. I am against the trial by media. Where is the follow ups on the story? They were wrong they don't post that.

I feel that the police did respond to the threat appropriately however over-embellished or over-sensationalized with the information released. As for the man recently convicted fro U of M, he didn't say he was gonna "shoot the place up" and now he can't legally purchase a firearm. Feel safer? Keep in mind Timothy McVeigh & Terry Nichols did not use fire arms in their plot and I believe their attack made national & international news. This man was a Science & Technology major so its not pass the realm of possibilities for him to do something similar.
I believed the Aurora shooter did make a threat to his Psychiatrist and it was reported to the Police.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08/james-holmes-psychiatrist-threat-assessment-dark-knight.html

http://abcnews.go.com/US/james-holmes-psychiatrist-contacted-university-police-weeks-movie/story?id=16943858