Arizona: Mass Shooting

[Ryan Ruck]

I watched a reply of what has been correctly labeled a pep rally. I think that over all it had a somewhat odd and inappropriate tone for being a memorial.

Also, you all might find this interesting but not surprising. Obama lied about Rep. Giffords opening her eyes for the first time.

There was an article here - http://sonoranchronicle.com/2011/01/...can-open-eyes/ - but it has been removed. Fortunately there is a Google Cache of the page:

Giffords Survives The Night; Can Open Eyes

January 9, 2011

The bullet “traveled the entire length of the brain on the left side,” said Dr. Rhee, Chief Trauma Surgeon at the University Medical Center, at a press conference on Sunday. In terms of being shot in the head, this is “about as good as it’s going to get,” said Rhee.

Giffords can open her eyes, but because she is on a ventilator she can’t speak, said Rhee.

The surgery took about two hours, said Rhee.

Rhee attributed Giffords’ surviving the gunshot wound to a variety of factors, including a fast response by paramedics, proper care by the hospital staff, and luck. The bullet did not cross from one hemisphere of the brain to the other, nor did it go through the geometric center of the brain.

The other patients are recovering. Only one patient remains in critical condition, said Rhee. The rest have moved out of the Intensive Care Unit.

[American Patriot]

Can he legally carry a weapon after been arrested???

This is first thing autority watch here.

Federal laws of the US require that ALL of us have a "background check" if we buy a gun, but each state has different rules regarding HOW that check is accomplished.


In my state if I go to buy a gun from a shop, I have to file a form (as Ryan mentioned earlier) and answer some questions (about 7 of them) as to whether or not I've ever been convicted of a FELONY.

Misdemeanors are "minor" crimes that usually don't involved doing great harm or damage to someone or something. You know, like... maybe painting graffiti on a wall or something. In many places you are not precluded from having a weapon if you were arrested or charged for something like that.

If you have a FELONY CRIME CONVICTION - or are currently going through a trial for such a think then the answer is, in 99.99% of the US you can't get a gun LEGALLY - unless the local authorities have missed your name on a report.

In my state they check with the "CBI" (the State version of the FBI for example) and they have a list of all people by Social Security number, address, name and a few other things who have committed felony crimes.

If someone tries to buy and they are known on that list, they will be denied the purchase of a weapon. I believe they list folks who have been committed to a mental facility as well - however, I don't know for sure.

So yes, he could have legally bought a weapon if he was arrested before. AZ has different laws than where I live (Az is a few miles south west of me). I don't know their laws like I know the ones in my state where it comes to guns but I understand it's easier for someone to get a gun there than here and it's not hard here.

If you're not a bad guy.

I think - to be honest with you, that EVEN A FELON should be allowed to own guns, vote and do all the other things we all do, AFTER he has served his time in prison and is no longer on probation or parole.

[American Patriot]

It would be interesting to know when he get the weapon.

In other words:"Who armed him???"

he bought the gun legally, Peterle.

Why would you care who "armed him"? It was not the fault of the gun maker, nor the gun seller that the guy pulled the trigger.

This is something we need - we MUST get away from. Do NOT blame anyone other than the person who used the gun.

This mentality that "we could have prevented this if we stopped the gun sellers, or the gun makers, or ban guns" is stupid and ignorant.

Criminals get guns even where they are banned.

In the 1920s here in the United States they banned the sale and possession of alcohol and directly precipitated the extreme gangland style 1920s, machine gun toting criminal activity that occurred then.

Banning things does NOT PREVENT THE POSSESSION AND USE of those items by those who wish to obtain, posses and use those items.

If we banned guns tomorrow then Ryan, me, Mal, Backstop (and you if you lived in the US) would all be considered "Criminals" and you would say "But I did nothing wrong!"

And you might rebel against that idea and God forbid, KEEP your GUN! Then you would REALLY be a CRIMINAL simply because someone said "Peterle you can't own a gun because you MIGHT do something with it...."


YOU know you wouldn't and they know you wouldn't, but you MIGHT think bad one day.

Where does it stop Peterle? Who decides what you can think and not think? Who makes that decision FOR YOU?

[Ryan Ruck]

Can he legally carry a weapon after been arrested???

This is first thing autority watch here.

Yes. To be legally disqualified from purchase you must be either:

• Convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence
• Convicted of a felony
• Dishonorably discharged from the military (equivalent to a felony)
• Have used drugs (though you are not tested, it is only a question on the 4473 form required to purchase from a dealer)
• Have been adjudicated to be mentally insane or involuntarily committed

There may be one or two other disqualifies but those are the ones that are important.

Thankfully a simple arrest doesn't affect that. You are afforded all due process before you are legally deprived of your rights.

It would be interesting to know when he get the weapon.

In other words:"Who armed him???"

He "legally" purchased the pistol from a Tucson area firearms dealer. I put legally in quotes because, as I posted earlier in the thread, he actually lied about his past drug use on the 4473 which disqualifies him from legally owning any firearms. Even if he had done a face-to-face purchase, it still wouldn't have been legal because of the drug use.

[American Patriot]

You make the point for me, Peterle.

A person intent on doing something ILLEGAL is going to lie. A person who is going to commit a crime (say, rob a bank using a gun) is going to 1) Rob the bank and 2) use a gun he gets whether it is legal or illegal to get.

In other words... gang members we have around here pretty much all carry a gun.

If they pass a law to make me give my guns up and stop carrying them.... then the only people who will have guns are the police and the criminals.

The law abiding people are caught in the middle and ALMOST ALWAYS END UP DYING.

Innocent people should not be treated as criminals. And criminals in this country are not allowed to be treated as criminals until they are actually FOUND GUILTY of doing a crime.

This is why banning guns (or speech) is idiotic.

[American Patriot]

There is a border here.

Preventions.

I have a clean record until now.(This can change,who knows?)

Peterle, you know as well as I do that Italy was a fascist regime just 60 or so years ago. Remember Mussolini? Remember what he did to people who didn't agree with him? Remember Italy fought WITH the Axis.

In a country where Socialism is the NORM it is NOT a difficult step over into fascism, or Communism. In either case, you become "guilty" without a trial. You have a dirty record now. See?

I dont want the guy next me arrested for been drunk going around with weapons.
Even if i put a bullet in his head if he causes problems to me.

Not sure what you mean.

I dont have problem knowing YOU going around armed!

In reference to "being drunk" and "having a gun"?

I don't do that. If I am going out to have a beer, I don't carry a gun on my person. First, we consider that a bad idea... I don't want a weapon on my person if I am drinking and might have too much. Then I no longer can control my weapon's safety can I? Someone could take it from me if I am drunk, right?

The second reason is/...... it's against the law in my state to have a weapon in your possession while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. So there you go. I am a law abiding citizen, that uses common sense. Even if it weren't against the law, I wouldn't do it.

(Doesn't mean I am unarmed, or ever unable to defend myself either though)

Most of the times it is like an iceberg,been drunk is the visible part.

The hidden part is he is a drug abuser.

Seems true enough to me... except people get drunk occasionally or rarely, and certainly aren't drug users too. I for one have never in my life used any drugs illegally. I have had to take something for pain a couple of times in my life, but I have never tried or used any sort of illegal substance ever in my life. Some people might call me a liar in this day and age, but they are also welcome to talk to my friends and family who know me.

[Ryan Ruck]

I dont want the guy next me arrested for been drunk going around with weapons.

That's part of living in a truly free society - risk.

You are free to own weapons and you are free to drink as much as you like. Yet you are expected to be responsible enough to not do both at the same time. Unfortunately expectations of personal responsibility and, more importantly, repercussions from a lack of it are practically nonexistent in today's world.

NRA News (on Sirius Radio every weeknight) does a segment called Deal Of The Day where they find and examine outrageous deals and plea bargains criminals are able to get. NRA News correctly posits that if criminals were justly punished rather than plead out and slapped on the wrists we'd have a safer society. They have no problems finding one or more Deals Of The Day, by the way.

[Ryan Ruck]

I agree banning guns (or speech) is idiotic.

On the other hands,before sell a weapon to a "No clear record holder",is better to investigate a little bit more about him.

We already have that with the NICS Check and the 4473 form.

I and others think those are the upper end of ability to help prevent criminals from getting weapons and even that, as proven by this incident, is not fool proof. Hell, every time I buy from a dealer I get a "delay" (up to 3 days) which means they do further checking on me. No idea why since my record is clean. The only logical explanation I've gotten is that there is someone out there with a similar name and physical description that sends up a red flag when my name is run.

But again, a criminal will get a weapon in one form or another. Whether that is stealing a gun, buying one that has been stolen from someone, or even building their own simple one shot firearm (i.e. a Zip Gun).

If you start doing anything above and beyond what already exists, I suspect you start seeing very quickly diminishing returns and in return only have a larger infringement on personal freedoms.

Also, keep in mind many (though not all) gun owners get a Concealed Carry Permit. This entails a detailed background check and this permit can be revoked (along with their firearms) if any of the disqualifies I posted earlier occur.

[Ryan Ruck]

That is crazy:It means "you" are NOT "you" for them!!!

There is another "you" with dirty record and the system simply doesnt work.

In a way. The automated system apparently looks for similarities in names and physical descriptions (height and weight, though my weight has dropped significantly), and compares those to a criminal database.

I've also heard that people with military clearances have been held up on delays as well but I don't know anything about that personally.

Unfortunately, as I said, without infringing on peoples' rights there really is no better way to go about doing it.

[Ryan Ruck]

I would also add that there is a way for people to voluntarily submit to a more detailed background check and obtain a purchase card which exempts you from NICS delays. I've thought about doing that but don't buy firearms frequently enough to bother with it.

[Ryan Ruck]

Well, the automated system checks for certain criteria. If those criteria are met, it red flags the purchase and it is delayed. It is then checked more in depth by an individual to see if the person making the purchase is really a criminal and the sale is denied or, if the person is not a criminal and the sale is approved.

[American Patriot]

In a way. The automated system apparently looks for similarities in names and physical descriptions (height and weight, though my weight has dropped significantly), and compares those to a criminal database.

I've also heard that people with military clearances have been held up on delays as well but I don't know anything about that personally.

Unfortunately, as I said, without infringing on peoples' rights there really is no better way to go about doing it.

*I* have never been delayed... ever. And I am someone with one of those things you mentioned.

[Ryan Ruck]

Also Peterle, I forgot to mention one thing about firearms purchases here in America. Being in Ohio which has minimal firearms laws, I forgot about residents in other states that face more restrictions on purchases.

In some states like New Jersey, New York, and Illinois you must undergo additional background checking and obtain a special permit that will, in some cases, allow you to purchase only one firearm. You then have to obtain a new one for each purchase. And Washington D.C. which just recently was forced to allow its residents to be able to purchase firearms (they had a total ban) has even more convoluted purchasing requirements. I'm not even sure how the residents there actually go about buying firearms!

You would think that with these additional background checks that these states would have lower crime rates than places like Ohio or Arizona where it is easier to buy, right? Nope... The crime rates in these states are much higher! In fact D.C. is one of the most dangerous cities in America!

I'm sure Mal can chime in and give more details or correct me about purchasing a firearm in one of these restricted states since he lives in NJ and has experience with it.

[Ryan Ruck]

Something interesting...

Shooting Rampage Victim Arrested At ABC-TV Town Hall Meeting

January 15, 2011

Two things are clear from Saturday's ABC News town hall meeting in Tucson. One: Tucsonans are eager to move forward and recover from last week's horrible shooting rampage. And two: that process is going to be slow and painful. That latter point was driven home by the arrest of a shooting victim, who threatened a speaker during the taping of the program.

ABC News Anchor Christiane Amanpour hosted the remarkable gathering of victims, heroes, witnesses and first responders. It was the first time most of them had been together since Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a Safeway parking lot, killing 6, and wounding or injuring 14 others -- a rampage that happened one week earlier almost to the hour.

On the platform with Amanpour were Col. Bill Badger, who helped tackle gunman Jared Lee Loughner; Daniel Hernandez, who ran to help wounded Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords while most people were ducking for cover, Patricia Maisch, who grabbed a magazine away from Loughner; Bill Hileman, whose wife, Susan, is still recovering from gunshot wounds.

On the front row was Kenneth Dorushka, who was shot shielding his wife from Loughner's gunfire; and J. Eric Fuller, who was shot in the knee.

Most of the event was devoted to a recounting of what had happened that terrible morning. Amanpour gently led the witnesses and survivors through the events, getting them to tell what they saw and experienced, and to talk about how they are coping.

Probably the most emotional moment came when Bill Hileman talked about his wife Susan's dual struggle: physical and emotional. The youngest victim who died in the shooting, 9 year old Christina Taylor Green, was there because she wanted to meet Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. A neighbor took her to the "Congress On Your Corner" event. Susan Hileman was that neighbor. Bill Hileman said that his wife now struggles with the fact that she took a neighbor's child to the event, but was not able to bring her home again.

The theme of the event was "An American Conversation Continued" -- the idea being to continue the conversation that a madman's brutal rampage had interrupted. So it was inevitable that the conversation would eventually turn to politics. It did, toward the end, with Amanpour leading a discussion on a very touchy but obvious topic: gun control.

That's where the atmosphere turned tense. When Tucson Tea Party founder Trent Humphries rose to suggest that any conversation about gun control should be put off until after the funerals for all the victims, witnesses say Fuller became agitated. Two told KGUN9 News that finally, Fuller took a picture of Humphries, and said, "You're dead."

When State Rep. Terri Proud (R-Tucson) rose to explain and clarify current and proposed gun legislation in the state, several people groaned or booed her. One of those booing, according to several witnesses, was Fuller. Witnesses sitting near Fuller told KGUN9 News that Fuller was making them feel very uncomfortable.

The event wrapped up a short time later. Deputies then escorted Fuller from the room. As he was being led off, Fuller shouted loudly to the room at large. Several witnesses said that what they thought they heard him shout was, "You're all whores!"

Fuller, age 63, is a political operative who specializes in gathering petitions for ballot initiatives. Before the program began, he passed out business cards to people sitting around him that read:
"Signatures
"Expediting Initiatives since 2006
"J. Eric Fuller
"Political Circulator."

A Pima County Sheriff's spokesman told KGUN9 News that the department has charged Fuller with one count of threats and intimidation, and said they plan to charge him with at least one count of disorderly conduct. Humphries told KGUN9 News that he does plan to press those charges.

The irony could not be more pointed, or painful. One of the issues discussed in the town hall meeting was the question of why no police or mental health professionals had ever intervened with Jared Lee Loughner, despite his increasingly bizarre behavior that had included disruptive outbursts.

Afterwards, several participants told KGUN9 News that they hoped the outburst would not overshadow what they saw as the true message of the meeting: that Tucson is filled with good and decent people, and the community will get through this.

Among the dignitaries and community leaders present: Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, who is a close personal friend of Giffords and who also sat on the platform with Amanpour; Tucson mayor Bob Walkup; Tucson Congressman Raúl Grijalva; former Tucson Congressman Jim Kolbe; and Father Richard Troutman of St. Odilia's Catholic Church, where the town hall took place.

Also on the platform: Pima County Sheriff's Bureau Chief Richard Kastigar, who gave an update on the investigation.

ABC did not allow KGUN9 to place a news photographer inside the meeting room during the program. However, ABC will broadcast the town hall meeting, entitled "After the Tragedy: An American Conversation Continued," Sunday. The network has given KGUN9-TV permission to air the broadcast twice. It can be seen at its regular time period of 7:00 AM Sunday (January 16) and also at 3:00 PM the same day.

[vector7]

Meet Eric Fuller
The Left finds a new icon

by John Hayward

01/14/2011
Trackback Link (Loading. . .)

You might be seeing a lot of Eric Fuller over the weekend. He’s one of the people injured in Jared Loughner’s shooting rampage, taking rounds in the knee and back. He’s also a vicious bigot, and because he’s elderly and a military veteran, the Left is going to fall in love with him.

Fuller gave an interview with the Democracy NOW radio show, in which he said of the Tucson shootings: “It looks like Palin, Beck, Sharron Angle, and the rest got their first target.” Presumably he’s not talking about Judge John Roll.

“Their wish for Second Amendment activism has been fulfilled,” Fuller ranted on, “senseless hatred leading to murder, lunatic fringe anarchism, subscribed to by John Boehner, mainstream rebels with vengeance for all, even 9-year-old girls.” I didn’t realize the Second Amendment called for all those things. They must be lurking in one of the penumbras or emanations.

And John Boehner’s part of Murder, Incorporated now? Even by the frothy standards of liberal hatemongering, that’s quite a stretch. At least the fevered minds of the Left can say that Palin, Beck, and Angle are feisty and confrontational. Boehner apparently inspired a murderous rampage by gently taking that gavel from Nancy Pelosi’s hands.

Fuller’s emergence as a beeping smoke detector amid the right-wing haze of the “Climate of Hate” has already drawn praise from Soros operative Eric Bohlert, who issued a Twitter taunt to Michelle Malkin and Andrew Breitbart: “Countdown to smearing wounded veteran from Tucson massacre begins… now.” Gosh, I hope Michelle and Andrew don’t mind if I go first.
Let me make this nice and clear for simple minds: getting shot does not confer either insight or sainthood, and neither does service in the military. I already know people like Bohlert understand the latter, since I don’t think you’ll see a “McCain-Palin” bumper sticker on his car. Every decent American should run like the wind from the creepy notion that certain people are completely above criticism, even when they question the very humanity of others.

Honorable military service is a strong point on any resume… but the military doesn’t stand for suppressing dissent through bloody slander. A lot of the people who think Eric Fuller’s military service make him impossible to disagree with usually have a much more… nuanced view of veterans, and their red-faced insistence on perfect virtue for their icons of the moment is very temporary. Ask Cindy Sheehan to read you the expiration date on her Absolute Moral Authority card.

Anyone who would go on the air to accuse Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Sharron Angle, or John Boehner of having anything to do with Jared Loughner’s actions is a disgrace. Nothing they did earlier in life changes that, and their deeds earlier in life are not erased by their current willingness to become part of the most disgusting political narrative of the new century. It’s all part of the concept of free will, which implies the ability to choose badly, and be held accountable for it… no matter who you are. Despite the urging of fringe characters like Bohlert, the mainstream media might back away from Fuller because he’s such an obvious nut. Then again, certain networks might be unable to resist the temptation to lean forward.

[Malsua]

I'm sure Mal can chime in and give more details or correct me about purchasing a firearm in one of these restricted states since he lives in NJ and has experience with it.

To purchase a firearm in New Jersey, you have to go to the police department, fellate the chief and if you're lucky, 4 months later he gives you permission.

You also have to get finger printed, go through a criminal and mental background check and have two upstanding citizen vouch for you. If you pass, you may buy as many long guns as you wish.

For each handgun, you have to get a permit to purchase a pistol. The process is identical as to the above(criminal, mental, and the references) except no fingerprinting unless it's been 2 years(I guess they think your fingerprints change over time). You may get as many pistol permits as you wish but you may only receive one handgun a month and pistol permits expire 90 days after they are issued. You can get the permits extended for 90 more days so effectively the max number of permits to apply for is 6. You can get a waiver for multiple purchases but that's another whole process.

In my town, the initial purchaser ID takes 4 months. Each time you apply for pistol permits, it usually takes about 6 weeks.

If you need a pistol immediately, you can go to Newark or Camden and get one the same day, that way, if a cop pisses you off in the afternoon, you can cap his ass that night. No background check required. You only have to wait if you're not a criminal.

[American Patriot]

Ok, again, we may have our political disagreements, but what I wrote the other day was more of a call for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership and regulations to keep guns out of the hands of obviously disturbed/criminal individuals like Laughner.

Michael, do you personally own a gun? If you do then you will understand that "responsible gun ownership" is the NORM in this country. That Laughner was able to get a gun merely shows that this is indeed a free country and that even HE had the right to own one. That is the POINT. The RIGHT is there and it should REMAIN there.

That Laughner took it on himself to SHOOT people is not so much a gun thing - it's a God thing. Man has Free Will, Michael and Laughner chose his path through life. The GUN did NOT do it for him.

There should NOT be ANY more regulations on guns. There SHALL NOT be any more regulations on guns. I will fight them all, ever last one of them, no matter how "common sense" they are made out to be.

I do not believe in 'Sacred' Rebellion or Revolution as such, as what happened with Our American Revolution was really the maintainence of a freedom the Crown had respected for some time in the Colonies until George III's reign, and in order to preserve it the Colonies had to cut ties to the British Empire.

Really? You don't believe Americans have a RIGHT to stop an illegitimate government, a tyrannical government, or a government that starts to lock up the Catholics and Jews or other religious groups?

You have a funny view of the Revolution then I think. The Colonies, Michael did NOT "cut ties". In fact, if you read history you will discover that the American Colonists tried several times to ask to not be taxed into poverty. That's what George was attempting to do in fact, and the British's own records bear this out.

A tyranny is not a legitemate government, government has legally ceased to exist.

No... it hasn't "legally" ceased to exist. King Georges government didn't cease to "exist legally" and in fact it remained in force for many years. A tyrannical government gets into power legitimately and then changes, sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly, but it remains in power and then eventually remains in power by force of arms.

Obama's government changed overnight. OVER NIGHT. And the attempts to regulate guns have been coming back out in force again since he took office. IF Obama's administration and the Democratically controlled Congress of a few months back COULD have managed to sneak through gun banning, we would NOT be having this conversation this very moment.

Guns WOULD have been banned en mass and the next thing would be our freedom of speaking about it.

My point is that in my view the Second Amendment is really a call for NEW Government in case of Tyranny or Anarchy, a government that will possess from the outset the legitemate monopoly of force. It is not the basis of the right to self-defense because self-defense is an unsaid FACT presupposed by the Founding Fathers, much like the existence of God was.

The Second Amendment is a call for BOTH "Self Defense" (of the COUNTRY) and of defense of our way of life. Prevention of a tyrannical government coming to power is based solely on "deterrence".

We DETER the government from "becoming evil" or whatever you want to call it by the very fact millions of Americans own guns. If this country is ever invaded - every, single American, regardless of their politics will fight and we will win because Americas simply WIN.

The fact that the law exists is to prevent our own government from disarming us. Us, the PEOPLE, not 'us' the military.

And I understood your point about CNN from the beginning, because I used the illustration of "yelling 'fire' in a public theatre" being an example of limitations upon the Bill of Rights. Incindiary language like 'let's overthrow the US Government' is seditious by definition, but while you called for CNN to be pulled off the air you contrarywise defended free speech with regard to the proposed congressional bill that would hobble It. Does CNN's language, while wrongheaded most of the time, really rise to the level of Sedition or yelling 'fire?' Perhaps.

CNN and all of those calling for "responsible gun laws" are the ones yelling fire. They are taking an incident that included a gun and pointing to the gun as the problem.

You as an American can just stop falling in line with the Leftists. YOU are in the wrong here. The problem is not guns, it's not gun laws and it's not LACK of gun laws.

There is ALREADY a law against murder. There is already a law against shooting people. There is a law against assault. There is a law against manslaughter. There is a law against wounding innocent people in the manner he used his gun. There is a law against making gun laws if you want to get very technical - it's called the Second Amendment.

That murderer was just that - a MURDERER - and he would have done his deed sooner or later, regardless of any extra laws. If guns were banned, he'd have FOUND A GUN. Or he'd have used a knife, or he'd simply have driven his vehicle through the crowd of people.

If he'd done that you'd have people calling for the banning of SUVs (because you know he wouldn't have used a VW bug!)

Look this isn't and never has been over guns. It's not over someone's ability to get a gun. It's over someone CHOOSING to COMMIT A CRIME.

In a nutshell, it is not an attack on freedom to limit freedoms to sane and noncriminal individuals.

In a NUTSHELL it IS an attack on freedoms of average individuals to limit or appear to limit their freedoms. Just because a crazy (and honestly, I have my doubts about him being "crazy" right now) man picks up a weapon legally at the store and then CHOOSES to go out and shoot people does not give YOU (or the government, me, or a committee or a Congress, or a police officer or ANYONE) the RIGHT to decide who is and isn't "allowed" to have guns.

BY DEFAULT all Americans have inherent rights to own guns, to free speech, to join whichever religion they wish and worship how they wish, and they have the right to not be molested, searched, have their property (including guns) seized. No one has the right to take your guns, or deny your ownership of guns based on arbitrary standards.

Why should *I* have to go through more hoops to purchase a gun...

"Ok, Rick... we know you own guns now, and you're a good guy, but here, fill out these forms, pay to go see a psychologist (of our choice) and let's make sure. And oh, you have to pay the doctor for your visit, and by the way we've instituted a tax on guns so that you're helping to pay for those poor people out there who are (too fucking lazy to work) are unemployed and you wouldn't want to prevent THEM from owning guns, right?"

No, Michael it is an AFFRONT for you, or anyone else to suggest that because ONE guy who MIGHT be "crazy" and legally got a gun, that the REST OF US should be punished.

Screw that. *I* won't stand for it, and I'm sick and tired of people suggesting "common sense".

Common sense would be to try reading what the damned Constitution says and sticking to it and stop playing word games with Americans.

[American Patriot]

• Updated August 7, 2012, 5:18 p.m. ET

Loughner Pleads Guilty to Arizona Shootings

TUCSON, Ariz.—Speaking in a slow, sometimes slurred voice, Jared Loughner, the accused gunman in last year's mass shooting outside a Tucson grocery store, said Tuesday he is guilty of killing six people and wounding 13 others, including the attempted assassination of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

Associated Press Jared Loughner



In a Tucson courtroom filled with victims and victims' family members, Mr. Loughner changed his plea to guilty from not guilty on 19 murder and attempted murder counts relating to the January 2011 shooting.
Judge Larry A. Burns read each count, which included the name of a dead or wounded person, aloud to Mr. Loughner, who appeared attentive but emotionless.


"I plead guilty," Mr. Loughner responded to each count, as he looked down at a list of the charges.


Jared Loughner pleaded guilty Tuesday to going on a shooting rampage at a political gathering in Arizona last year, killing six people and wounding former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Steve Eder has the latest on The News Hub.




The guilty plea was expected as part of a deal worked out in advance between prosecutors and defense lawyers. The deal will likely lock Mr. Loughner, 23 years old, in federal prison for life, but save him from a possible death sentence if he had been convicted at trial.


The plea also marked the beginning of closure for Tucson, where a spasm of violence shocked the country 18 months ago and still reverberates in this community. Earlier in the day, Ms. Giffords's husband, astronaut Mark Kelly, said in a statement that he and his wife support the deal.

Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in the head during a mass shooting in Arizona last year, on Tuesday said she supports a possible plea deal for the accused gunman that would keep him in prison for life. Tamara Audi has details on Lunch Break. Photo: Getty Images.




"The pain and loss caused by the events of January 8, 2011 are incalculable," Mr. Kelly said. "Avoiding a trial will allow us—and we hope the whole Southern Arizona community—to continue with our recovery and move forward with our lives."


Judge Burns had previously declared Mr. Loughner not competent to stand trial. However, he accepted the guilty plea after a report and testimony from a prison psychologist said Mr. Loughner had reached competency after months of powerful psychotropic drugs and therapy.


Judge Burns said he believed Mr. Loughner was competent to make the deal and that it is "in the best interests of the community."
Previously

• Arizona Families Likely to Back Deal 8/5/12

Mr. Loughner responded to a series of mostly yes and no questions from Judge Burns saying he understood the charges against him and understood that by pleading guilty to them he was giving up his right to trial.
"Do you have a clear mind and a clear head about the decision you are making?" the judge asked Mr. Loughner.


"Yes, I do," Mr. Loughner responded, as his lawyer, Judy Clarke, sat near him, at times putting her hand on his back.


Mr. Loughner's calm and attentive demeanor was a marked departure from past court appearances, where he had at times grinned, and in one case shouted incomprehensibly and had to be removed from court.


Mr. Loughner still must be sentenced, but Tuesday's plea hearing offered a measure of closure to shooting victims and their families. Many packed the courtroom, as they have at these hearings for 18 months. Some victims said they supported the plea deal, and that prosecutors made the agreement well aware of the victims' and their families' feelings on whether Mr. Loughner should receive the death penalty.


The plea deal comes after months of legal battle over forcibly medicating Mr. Loughner to restore him to competency, a move his lawyers protested. However, the government eventually won on the medication issue after prison officials said Mr. Loughner's outbursts made him a danger to himself.


A prison psychologist, Christina Pietz, has regularly reported to the court on Mr. Loughner's mental state, which has improved with medication. Without medication, Dr. Pietz described Mr. Loughner as "consumed with his delusions," both visual and auditory.


Dr. Pietz reported during hearings and in writing over the last year that with forced doses of powerful psychotropic drugs, Mr. Loughner was making improvements.


But her testimony Tuesday gave the most comprehensive look into Mr. Loughner's time in prison and his mental state. The young man has been attending group therapy with a few other inmates, and even engaged in "recreational therapy" including painting and limited outdoor time.


He has two jobs at the prison, which "he loves," Dr. Pietz said. Mr. Loughner rolls towels to be given to inmates after showers and stamps outgoing mail. "It's a big deal to him. He's doing something he's successful at."


Mr. Loughner has expressed remorse over the killings and told Dr. Pietz he feels especially bad about his youngest victim, 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green.


But, she said, he considers himself a "failure" for failing to kill Ms. Giffords. "He's disappointed. He feels like he failed. He set out to do this and he wasn't successful," she said. Dr. Pietz said Mr. Loughner told her that if Ms. Giffords is alive "then Jared is a failure."


Dr. Pietz said Mr. Loughner has made considerable improvement, but key to the decision for both sides to agree to the plea—she said she couldn't guarantee he would remain competent.


Mr. Loughner is expected to receive several life sentences, but his official sentencing date will be in mid-November.