The problem is, if Millenials are soft, its because the Boomers made us that way. We didnt ask for participation trophies or helicopter parents, we get criticized ...

I agree that it's most likely the result of severe, untreated mental illness.  Apparently there are court records in MD related to his parent's divorce indicating he had serious health issues.  Apparently they weren't significant enough to prevent him from traveling to Florida for a gaming contest.

Is it unreasonable to ask that such court records should make it more difficult for such a disturbed person to buy two guns?  

https://twitter.com/wjxt4/status/1034161209401073664

---

I agree that it's most likely the result of severe, untreated mental illness.  Apparently there are court records in MD related to his parent's divorce indicating he had serious health issues.  Apparently they weren't significant enough to prevent him from traveling to Florida for a gaming contest.

Is it unreasonable to ask that such court records should make it more difficult for such a disturbed person to buy two guns?  

https://twitter.com/wjxt4/status/1034161209401073664

Without getting political, As a person who leans left, that also likes guns, this is honestly all the majority of us want.

I dont understand how this doesnt get flagged. Personally I was just prescribed an antidepressant, no shame to admit it. I have never had even the slightest inkling of shooting someone, but if they even wanted to flag me due to the rx, I would totally understand. There needs to be a line with no wiggle room IMO.

---

IT WAS ALWAYS THE JAGS

Is it unreasonable to ask that such court records should make it more difficult for such a disturbed person to buy two guns?  

https://twitter.com/wjxt4/status/1034161209401073664

Without getting political, As a person who leans left, that also likes guns, this is honestly all the majority of us want.

I dont understand how this doesnt get flagged. Personally I was just prescribed an antidepressant, no shame to admit it. I have never had even the slightest inkling of shooting someone, but if they even wanted to flag me due to the rx, I would totally understand. There needs to be a line with no wiggle room IMO.

Not in Merica!

They already terk er jerbs they’ll never take mah gerns!

---

Without getting political, As a person who leans left, that also likes guns, this is honestly all the majority of us want.

I dont understand how this doesnt get flagged. Personally I was just prescribed an antidepressant, no shame to admit it. I have never had even the slightest inkling of shooting someone, but if they even wanted to flag me due to the rx, I would totally understand. There needs to be a line with no wiggle room IMO.

Not in Merica!

They already terk er jerbs they’ll never take mah gerns!

You really have no clue what the opposition is concerned about do you?  Ranger just spelled it out to you yet you missed it.  There is not one single sane gun advocate that is opposed to credible, unbiased background checks.  The issue is who administers them, and what protection is there against a rogue government hell bent on confiscation.  Just like most everything political these days, empathy is non-existent, and should someone disagree with "my" position they must be a mental midget and not worthy of civil discourse.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Not in Merica!

They already terk er jerbs they’ll never take mah gerns!

You really have no clue what the opposition is concerned about do you?  Ranger just spelled it out to you yet you missed it.  There is not one single sane gun advocate that is opposed to credible, unbiased background checks.  The issue is who administers them, and what protection is there against a rogue government hell bent on confiscation.  Just like most everything political these days, empathy is non-existent, and should someone disagree with "my" position they must be a mental midget and not worthy of civil discourse.

I think Cleatwood was just pointing out the normal rhetoric we hear all day every day. (From all sides) But, lets try to keep politics out of this thread.

Not sure if everyone heard, but Blake's foundation assisted the first responders and he personally paid for all of their meals at the landing. I know its not huge, but at least its something.

---

IT WAS ALWAYS THE JAGS

Not in Merica!

They already terk er jerbs they’ll never take mah gerns!

You really have no clue what the opposition is concerned about do you?  Ranger just spelled it out to you yet you missed it.  There is not one single sane gun advocate that is opposed to credible, unbiased background checks.  The issue is who administers them, and what protection is there against a rogue government hell bent on confiscation.  Just like most everything political these days, empathy is non-existent, and should someone disagree with "my" position they must be a mental midget and not worthy of civil discourse.

What evidence is there to actually fear the situation you've described?   Confiscation of existing owners' weapons has been exclaimed over and over again to NOT be part of the agenda by those presenting any sort of reasonable legislation about vetting. 

Why live in so much fear that someone is coming for your guns when folks are simply seeking better vetting for new owners?   It's such a basic baby step that has nothing to do with your existing guns.

---

I agree that it's most likely the result of severe, untreated mental illness.  Apparently there are court records in MD related to his parent's divorce indicating he had serious health issues.  Apparently they weren't significant enough to prevent him from traveling to Florida for a gaming contest.

Is it unreasonable to ask that such court records should make it more difficult for such a disturbed person to buy two guns?  

https://twitter.com/wjxt4/status/1034161209401073664

As a gun owner myself and a very staunch supporter of the second amendment, no it is not too much to ask.  There are laws on the books that should have flagged him and prevented him from purchasing firearms "legally".  My point is that new laws don't need to be put in place, rather existing law needs to be enforced better.

Is it unreasonable to ask that such court records should make it more difficult for such a disturbed person to buy two guns?  

https://twitter.com/wjxt4/status/1034161209401073664

Without getting political, As a person who leans left, that also likes guns, this is honestly all the majority of us want.

I dont understand how this doesnt get flagged. Personally I was just prescribed an antidepressant, no shame to admit it. I have never had even the slightest inkling of shooting someone, but if they even wanted to flag me due to the rx, I would totally understand. There needs to be a line with no wiggle room IMO.

This has become somewhat of a "political" discussion, but I am going to choose to leave it here for now.  My reasoning is that more people should be aware and make decisions based on reality rather than emotion.  If it turns too political it will be moved to the appropriate forum.  I would like to keep this discussion civil and try to put correct information out for others.

Regarding the rest of your comment, I don't understand either.  I thought part of the 2 day waiting period and background check was supposed to prevent somebody like this guy from being able to purchase firearms.  I know that when I purchased my first couple of firearms here in Florida prior to getting my Concealed Carry Permit I had to get a complete background check.  When I did apply for my permit I also had to not only have another background check, but also had to provide finger prints.  I personally had no problem with that since I had to provide the same to get my security clearance for my job.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Is it unreasonable to ask that such court records should make it more difficult for such a disturbed person to buy two guns?  

As a gun owner myself and a very staunch supporter of the second amendment, no it is not too much to ask.  There are laws on the books that should have flagged him and prevented him from purchasing firearms "legally".  My point is that new laws don't need to be put in place, rather existing law needs to be enforced better.

A solid point. Though I see no harm in making it tougher for such individuals to legally obtain a firearm, you make a good point.
And I'm not anti-gun, BTW. I simply would like to see some common sense measures adopted and enforced. (even if it simply starts with enforcing the measures in place)

---

Yes I think most of us would agree that if you’ve been hospitalized twice for a mental issue, whatever that may be, you should not be able to purchase a gun legally.

It needs to be harder for me to purchase a gun than to operate a vehicle. I am completely ok with them putting me through a test to show that I know how to properly use the gun that I intend on purchasing. Classes about operating a gun and safety etc should be mandatory for everyone intending to purchase a gun.

Those are just common sense ideas. We don’t whine that the government is taking away our right to drive because they force us to pass a written and practical examination do we?

And if you don’t want to concede that, I fear that you are just irrational about this topic and can’t be reasoned with.

---

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3><B><FONT face=Verdana color=#ff6600 size=4></FONT></B></FONT>

The problem is the legal gun owner who would likely shoot anyone may share a house with someone who may have mental health issues.

A reason why these incidents don't happen if ever in a lot of countries is that people with social issues would never be able to navigate the black market to get their hands on an illegal weapon.

---

Yes I think most of us would agree that if you’ve been hospitalized twice for a mental issue, whatever that may be, you should not be able to purchase a gun legally.

It needs to be harder for me to purchase a gun than to operate a vehicle.  I am completely ok with them putting me through a test to show that I know how to properly use the gun that I intend on purchasing. Classes about operating a gun and safety etc should be mandatory for everyone intending to purchase a gun.

Those are just common sense ideas.  We don’t whine that the government is taking away our right to drive because they force us to pass a written and practical examination do we?

And if you don’t want to concede that, I fear that you are just irrational about this topic and can’t be reasoned with.

The idea that driving a car on public roads is a privilege and not a right is absurd, but that is a topic for another time.

The issues with mental health as a precursor to the exercise of your rights:

The science of mental health isn't concrete. What yesterday was a sickness is today a protected class.

Evaluation of mental health is subject to intentional or unconscious bias.That matters when:

The means to appeal or regain your rights after a mental health episode are murky at best.

It also matters that an individual's health record becomes a matter of public record which violates the Right to privacy and federal law.

Finally, the state of Mental health is not fixed. Mental health at the time of purchase does not reflect mental health at the time of violation.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

As a gun owner myself and a very staunch supporter of the second amendment, no it is not too much to ask.  There are laws on the books that should have flagged him and prevented him from purchasing firearms "legally".  My point is that new laws don't need to be put in place, rather existing law needs to be enforced better.

A solid point. Though I see no harm in making it tougher for such individuals to legally obtain a firearm, you make a good point.
And I'm not anti-gun, BTW. I simply would like to see some common sense measures adopted and enforced. (even if it simply starts with enforcing the measures in place)

Give it up. This is America - it's not going to happen.

As Americans we have decided that we'll just put up with the carnage. We'll put up with the collateral damage. Just the way it is. Wrong place, wrong time. Oh well.

If the killing of 20+ first graders brought no action, and it didn't, we've decided as a people that we'll just play the odds. And the odds are in our favor.

Anyway, it's mostly blacks killing blacks in the inner-city. We'll be ok out here in the suburbs. Mostly.

This is America. We're too afraid of the Invasive State. There will always be a reason to not do anything. Always willing to give our politicians a pass. Money doesn't talk it swears. Sure, we'll play at the margins - more metal detectors! - and we'll certainly be more than willing to offer up our thoughts and prayers. Always our thoughts and prayers. After the fact.

So why do we spend so much time talking about a subject of which we know we're not doing anything about? Get on to more important subjects - like what are the Jags going to do about left tackle?

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

As a gun owner myself and a very staunch supporter of the second amendment, no it is not too much to ask.  There are laws on the books that should have flagged him and prevented him from purchasing firearms "legally".  My point is that new laws don't need to be put in place, rather existing law needs to be enforced better.

A solid point. Though I see no harm in making it tougher for such individuals to legally obtain a firearm, you make a good point.
And I'm not anti-gun, BTW. I simply would like to see some common sense measures adopted and enforced. (even if it simply starts with enforcing the measures in place)

Give it up. This is America - it's not going to happen.

As Americans we have decided that we'll just put up with the carnage. We'll put up with the collateral damage. Just the way it is. Wrong place, wrong time. Oh well.

If the killing of 20+ first graders brought no action, and it didn't, we've decided as a people that we'll just play the odds. And the odds are in our favor.

Anyway, it's mostly blacks killing blacks in the inner-city. We'll be ok out here in the suburbs. Mostly.

This is America. We're too afraid of the Invasive State. There will always be a reason to not do anything. Always willing to give our politicians a pass. Money doesn't talk it swears. Sure, we'll play at the margins - more metal detectors! - and we'll certainly be more than willing to offer up our thoughts and prayers. Always our thoughts and prayers. After the fact.

So why do we spend so much time talking about a subject of which we know we're not doing anything about? Get on to more important subjects - like what are the Jags going to do about left tackle?

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Yes I think most of us would agree that if you’ve been hospitalized twice for a mental issue, whatever that may be, you should not be able to purchase a gun legally.

It needs to be harder for me to purchase a gun than to operate a vehicle.  I am completely ok with them putting me through a test to show that I know how to properly use the gun that I intend on purchasing. Classes about operating a gun and safety etc should be mandatory for everyone intending to purchase a gun.

Those are just common sense ideas.  We don’t whine that the government is taking away our right to drive because they force us to pass a written and practical examination do we?

And if you don’t want to concede that, I fear that you are just irrational about this topic and can’t be reasoned with.

The idea that driving a car on public roads is a privilege and not a right is absurd, but that is a topic for another time.

The issues with mental health as a precursor to the exercise of your rights:

The science of mental health isn't concrete. What yesterday was a sickness is today a protected class.

Evaluation of mental health is subject to intentional or unconscious bias.That matters when:

The means to appeal or regain your rights after a mental health episode are murky at best.

It also matters that an individual's health record becomes a matter of public record which violates the Right to privacy and federal law.

Finally, the state of Mental health is not fixed. Mental health at the time of purchase does not reflect mental health at the time of violation.

This is what I'd absolutely agree with. You buy a firearm 10 years ago, but go off the deep end 2 years ago, you still legally own a firearm even if you cant buy one now. I have no idea how to address that.

---

IT WAS ALWAYS THE JAGS

Finally, the state of Mental health is not fixed. Mental health at the time of purchase does not reflect mental health at the time of violation.

This is what I'd absolutely agree with. You buy a firearm 10 years ago, but go off the deep end 2 years ago, you still legally own a firearm even if you cant buy one now. I have no idea how to address that.

There is really no way to address it. In these instances it is really only the family and friends that might help in removing weapons from these crazies or alerting someone of recent or new purchases of weapons and in end the even if you could remove them from every single citizen diagnosed that would only really addresses an extremely small percentage of people that are killing with guns.

This country is way past the point where gun elimination is possible in reality. Simply too many weapons already in existence. Take me for example. You could show up to my house with the proof of a certain number of firearms I purchased or registered at some point and demand that I relinquish them. Even if I did I could do that and still have another 25 or so that you wouldn't or couldn't know that I own.

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

You really have no clue what the opposition is concerned about do you?  Ranger just spelled it out to you yet you missed it.  There is not one single sane gun advocate that is opposed to credible, unbiased background checks.  The issue is who administers them, and what protection is there against a rogue government hell bent on confiscation.  Just like most everything political these days, empathy is non-existent, and should someone disagree with "my" position they must be a mental midget and not worthy of civil discourse.

What evidence is there to actually fear the situation you've described?   Confiscation of existing owners' weapons has been exclaimed over and over again to NOT be part of the agenda by those presenting any sort of reasonable legislation about vetting. 

Why live in so much fear that someone is coming for your guns when folks are simply seeking better vetting for new owners?   It's such a basic baby step that has nothing to do with your existing guns.

That's just not true the last speaker of the house Nancy Pelosie went on record a while back that if she could she would round up and confiscate every last firearm. 

Im not disagreeing this guy should've been flagged I'm just pointing out the statement that confiscation is not the end motive or result of most legislation is incorrect. I for one never want to live where only the state is armed. 

The landing is a gun free zone obviously laws didn't stop this nut job.

---

Yes I think most of us would agree that if you’ve been hospitalized twice for a mental issue, whatever that may be, you should not be able to purchase a gun legally.

It needs to be harder for me to purchase a gun than to operate a vehicle.  I am completely ok with them putting me through a test to show that I know how to properly use the gun that I intend on purchasing. Classes about operating a gun and safety etc should be mandatory for everyone intending to purchase a gun.

Those are just common sense ideas.  We don’t whine that the government is taking away our right to drive because they force us to pass a written and practical examination do we?

And if you don’t want to concede that, I fear that you are just irrational about this topic and can’t be reasoned with.

I need more than just a simple hospitalization. I've seen people admitted for mental evaluations that didn't need it. My wife is a nurse and tells me stories all the time. She's seen people admitted that weren't experiencing suicidal or homicide tendencies, and the only reason they were admitted is because they're a little off. Doctors hold a lot of power in that regard.

I'm not against crazy people not having guns, but I worry that a broad definition would be used politically. 

The problem is the legal gun owner who would likely shoot anyone may share a house with someone who may have mental health issues.

A reason why these incidents don't happen if ever in a lot of countries is that people with social issues would never be able to navigate the black market to get their hands on an illegal weapon.

Huh? Do you have proof of that?

---

The idea that driving a car on public roads is a privilege and not a right is absurd, but that is a topic for another time.

The issues with mental health as a precursor to the exercise of your rights:

The science of mental health isn't concrete. What yesterday was a sickness is today a protected class.

Evaluation of mental health is subject to intentional or unconscious bias.That matters when:

The means to appeal or regain your rights after a mental health episode are murky at best.

It also matters that an individual's health record becomes a matter of public record which violates the Right to privacy and federal law.

Finally, the state of Mental health is not fixed. Mental health at the time of purchase does not reflect mental health at the time of violation.

This is what I'd absolutely agree with. You buy a firearm 10 years ago, but go off the deep end 2 years ago, you still legally own a firearm even if you cant buy one now. I have no idea how to address that.

It would be a crack in the system, sure, but a slotted spoon can still scoop more gravel than no spoon at all.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

This is what I'd absolutely agree with. You buy a firearm 10 years ago, but go off the deep end 2 years ago, you still legally own a firearm even if you cant buy one now. I have no idea how to address that.

It would be a crack in the system, sure, but a slotted spoon can still scoop more gravel than no spoon at all.

Absolutely

---

IT WAS ALWAYS THE JAGS

The problem is the legal gun owner who would likely shoot anyone may share a house with someone who may have mental health issues.

A reason why these incidents don't happen if ever in a lot of countries is that people with social issues would never be able to navigate the black market to get their hands on an illegal weapon.

We have a friend here in NC who was married to a girl who has serious mental health issues we thought she had worked through (turns out she's an excellent liar). He has several hunting rifles and a shotgun he had to store in a locked gun safe in a locked closet that she couldn't have any access to. Like a reinforced door she couldn't hack through if she went nuts. Local law enforcement could show up at any time to be sure his guns were locked down- he agreed to it when they married- which was a good idea for when she really did go bat crap crazy. All she could do in the end was take a rocking chair from the porch and break all of the windows she could reach from outside the house.

He wasn't in denial of the potential risk of her mental illness so he took precautions, though I can't say I'd agree to law enforcement showing up whenever. I think a big problem is people are willfully ignorant of the mental health issues in themselves or family members and have the "it will never happen to me/this family" mentality. That's dangerous.

---