Previous Post
Next Post

“Laws have the power to disarm law-abiding citizens who would obey those laws. They have no power to prevent an irresponsible parent from re-arming his son with the very guns he agreed to keep inaccessible, and from failing to inform law enforcement that an individual proven to be a danger to himself or others now has firearms.

“Once again, we were not failed by a lack of adequate gun laws. We were failed by human error that neglected to fully enforce those laws.” – Amy Swearer in If Current Laws Had Been Followed, There Would Have Been No Waffle House Shooting [via]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. It wasn’t illegal to give him his guns back once he moved away from FOIDland. He wasn’t a prohibited person, just lost his FOID. That should have been a sign, but Daddy didn’t care.

    • He lost his FOID because he was prohibited. I don’t believe the state police have the power to revoke for the feelz. If you flag prohibited on NICS then you’re revoked.

      • Did the Secret Service input to NICS? Once his record was expunged did he then have his rights restored?

  2. That’s not the problem here. The problem is we let the politicians hijack the argument blaming guns instead of where the real problem lies-the killers.
    There are three key elements to a mass murder-
    1. A person or persons with no regard for human life
    2. They make a decision to murder people
    3. They choose a method for their madness-sometimes a gun.

    If you take away the gun you are still left with the murder wanting to kill. You haven’t saved anyone, you only change the way they die. Perfect example, the murders yesterday from a killer in Canada mowing down a crowd in a large rental van.

  3. “Once again, we were not failed by a lack of adequate gun laws. We were failed by human error that neglected to fully enforce those laws.” – Amy Swearer in If Current Laws Had Been Followed, There Would Have Been No Waffle House Shooting [via]


    Quit relying on the law, and the purveyors of it, to protect you on an individual level, BECAUSE THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

  4. Interesting how gun owners think being nice does not work against street thugs but works against gun control thugs.
    – We’re are law abiding citizens!
    – Nice, here’s one more law for you to abide by!

  5. The NICS program and the list of reasons/laws need to be reviewed. What w o old we consider reasons for not allowing the ownership of a firearm. The Nashville killer had his record expunged after his probation and community service. A lawyer could have argued for the return of his FOID card.
    So— What restrictions would WE want?

    • How about if you are nuts you don’t get your guns back. This shooter was obviously mentality ill. His family knew it, the FBI knew it, everyone around him knew it. Does that mean he couldn’t have got his hands on another gun? No. The guns not the issue. The issue is a person who showed signs of being batshit crazy was left to roam the streets.

      • Ya, thinking Taylor Swift is stalking you indicates something in your head has worked loose.

        It sounds like the family had some idea that he was loopy, but nobody followed through to get him diagnosed and treated. Might have been an adult-onset thing that didn’t manifest until after he’d moved out on his own, maybe he was fairly normal when he was living at home, but it’s difficult to see what laws would have changed this.

  6. Daddy should be charged. I doubt he will as he’s a wealthy republitard donor. Whatever-crazy boy could still play hit and run…

  7. I agree! Let’s “enforce” all of the legitimate gun laws. Oh, wait! There’s only one! Enforce the 2nd Amendment. That’s change we can all get behind!

  8. The enforcement proboem is characteristic of progressivism’s emphasis on a managed society. Societies which are managed by bureaucrats are notoriously incompetent which is why socialism in its various forms always fails.

  9. It is being reported that the Tennessee Waffle House Shooter displayed symptoms such that one may infer he is pretty seriously schizophrenic, was sent to psychological therapy twice, engaged in patently irrational behaviors, and had his firearms taken from him by public authorities in Illinois. Apparently, his Father got the firearms back from Illinois authorities on the “promise” he would not return them to his son. Okay, all that being reiterated highlights two things:
    1) This shooter should have been in a mental health institution. Involuntarily committing a person to a mental health institution is not a simple process (which, I think, is good) and psychologists are apparently reluctant to involuntarily commit patients (which seems good but may be a two-edged sword).
    2) The Parent who returned the firearms to the shooter against his “promise” has liability, but there’s no legal, criminal liability, apparently. In other shootings we see the same issue with the parents and family refusing to acknowledge the issues their child may have. This was an issue with the VA Tech shooter, Santa Barbara shooter and the Sandy Hook shooter.

    Protecting each individual’s natural and civil rights is imperative, but so is protecting the natural and civil rights of everyone else whom the individual may harm. It is not a matter of “them” and “us”, but of recognizing we are all in the same sociopolitical group at the level of equality as humans. Hence, we must always protect everyone’s rights equally. It can be a razor’s edge at times, and some situations may never have a perfect answer. The Left thinks there is a perfect answer to every challenge, namely, a Law (or series of Laws), and therein lies one of their greatest fatal flaws. A totalitarian State clings to this completely erroneous concept, denies liberty and subjects its people to rigid controls. Neither the individual, nor the group, has the full exercise of liberty [with which everyone on the planet is naturally, unalienably endowed] in the totalitarian State.
    So, what do we do? Embrace liberty and accept the risks that come along with it, or keep accepting the passage of laws, and evermore laws, that don’t work because that strategy cannot work. If we do not choose the former, we are doomed to lives of “chains and slavery” by the latter.

  10. It should be telling that all proposed laws only affect law abiding people who own guns.

    The purpose is not to prevent murders, the purpose is to disarm the population.

    An armed population is not easy to control, hence the reason for the Second Amendment. The founders tried to make sure citizens could not be controlled an a government gone wrong.

    Be Prepared !

  11. The shooter should have been involuntarily committed. Such laws exist and have been used.
    This country should not employ them willy-nilly. But nor should it avoid them and leave sociopathic people on the streets due to some irrational fears of the libertarian-minded. As with most things, the right balance needs to be found.

    Remember the Navy Yard shooter? He called up the Newport RI PD and told them about the voices he was hearing and the beams directed at his brain. They gave this info to the Newport Naval base. After that, nothing happened. Well, nothing except the armed assault on the Washington DC Navy Yard. Bottom line, Alexis shouldn’t have been roaming about unmedicated.

  12. I actually just recently had this argument with an ant gunner type.

    I was saying that it’s frustrating to see this guy get his guns back so easily when he’s clearly a problem, but we’re always hearing stories about people having to fight in court for years after their guns are wrongly seized.

    • yes and therein lies the problem. it is easy for law enforcement to make up BS to get someone they dont like committed and psychiatry is now and only ever has been a pseudoscience. even now they dont have anything like close to a full understanding of how the brain works when it is functioning as it should let alone what is actually going on when there is a problem. go see 10 psychiatrists if you have a problem and you will likely get 10 different diagnoses. that is the simple fact of the matter. then add to that that once started on certain meds it often ends up with them prescribing more meds for different diagnoses as well…… it becomes a rather big mess and with medications that can be very hard and even dangerous to come off.

      personally (and both my parther and i have had serious depression that she was on meds for years and i was on them for 6 months though neither of us were at any point going to be a potential risk to others only ourselves) all mental patients that show any signs of being a risk to others should be in a mental hospital until they are able to be off the meds and showing no sign of harming others at all. no they are not good places but then nor is being out in society where harm to others may come to pass and i have seen quite a few who are quite violent towards others and it can be as simple as you have looked in their direction as part of keeping your head on a swivel.

      i will add that no it is not an ideal solution but to be honest i dont think there is an ideal solution for this problem.

Comments are closed.