Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

Comments

13 comments

Date Votes
  • tobefree
    The references to the tats are uncalled for...I know several young folks covered with tats that I'd trust my life too!!!
    Off Subject I know... but I fail to see tats as a pertinent factor in this case or any crime!!
    0
  • Defender
    The government knew he was a whack-job because of his military discharge and his stay at a government run Thresholds-Mary Hill House, a psychiatric treatment center for teens, where he was confined for a year. As for tattoos, mental health experts have long ago reported that excessive tattooing is symptomatic of a mental pathology. Police agencies and the military refuse to accept recruits with excessive tattoos.

    This is another case of government's failure to cooperate with itself.
    0
  • daveald
    there seems to be so many breakdowns on the governments part that makes me wonder if they are accidents or not. Think about it if the gov. want our guns how better to do that then allow this kind of thing to happen. If indeed it takes months for the process to go through the system, then that shows that there should have been some red flags. I wonder why there wasn't?
    0
  • medic07
    Defender
    The reason that the military refuses to allow anyone in with excessive tattoos is not based upon any supposed mental pathology.

    It is based upon image in uniform. We do not allow anyone to have any tattoos above the collarbone or anything on the arms that covers more than a quarter of the exposed surface. If you have a large tattoo on the arm, you are required to keep your sleeves rolled down.

    You can have large tattoos but they cannot be visible while in uniform. I have two rather large ones on my shoulder blades as well as two on the chest and one on my bicep. None of them are visible in uniform and the last time I had a pysch eval (last year), the doc didnt find any mental defects with me.
    0
  • pickenup
    Don't worry, once HR 2640 is up and running, it will fix everything. [xx(]
    0
  • idsman75
    When I was a Recruiter (2001-2005), the Army had no restriction on the number of tattoos a person could have when enlisting--only placement and type. Every tattoo required a review by someone up at BN HQ. There are now waivers for tattoos in previously prohibited areas of the body.

    Here's the beef I have. This guy enlisted fraudulently. There is NO WAY in HECK that someone who had previously been locked up in a mental institution for not taking ANTI-PSYCHOTIC MEDS could possibly pass a MEPS Doctor's sniff-test. MEPS Docs are disinterested parties and the individual services have no power to over-ride their decisions unless a waiver is possible which must be approved by the Surgean General of the Army--another disinterested party.

    This guy was discharged on a medical type of discharge which is faster and more expedient than a discharge for Fraudulent Enlistment which, if I remember correctly, IS A FELONY. If this case of Fraudulent Enlistment was handled correctly then he wouldn't have passed a NICS check and he wouldn't have been allowed to buy those guns. This guy had to have lied to the MEPS Doctor.

    I had a guy lie to me once. He got in the Army and then didn't want to be there anymore because he missed living in his parents' trailer with his trailer-trash girlfriend. He was 23 years old and worked at an ice cream plant. What did he do? He pulled out his "Wild Card" which was the information that he concealed from me and everyone else in the military accession process. He revealed that he had spent 7 days committed to a mental institution due to the fact that he had previously attempted suicide. He should have been discharged on the grounds of Fraudulent Enlistment but we have this kinder gentler approach nowadays.
    0
  • medic07
    idsman75...yep you are spot on. They pushed the MEB through and got a medical discharge versus a fraudulent discharge.

    I have an officer right now they are looking at giving an MEB and Med Sep to versus charging him. He failed to disclose he had asthma as a child and suffers migraine headaches when he went to the recuiters, MEPS and ultimately MIMSO. Now it is impacting him as he is off on quarters quite a bit of the time which impacts his patients as well.

    This NIU nut would never have passed NICS if the Army had done the right thing and made him a felon. The Army isnt the only branch taking the easy route to get these guys out though.
    0
  • 46270
    Ive got 4 tats myself.
    All eagles, two on each arm.

    I retired after 23 yrs of honarable service
    0
  • Captplaid
    In Illinois, one of the questions on the FOID application is "Are you mentally retarded?"

    Personally I think the Americans with Disabilities Act could make an arguement here.

    Yet, this guy gets through. Go figure.
    0
  • dan kelly
    i dont think it would have made any difference if he told the truth and the cops knew he shouldnt have had a gun.
    in 1996 when we had a massacre here and 35 people were killed the police knew that the gunman had at least one ar15...he threatened to shoot 2 people, they complained to the cops, the cops checked on the data base for licenced gun owners and saw he didnt have a licence to have any guns....and they didnt even bother to get a search warrant!
    the result was 35 innocent people slaughtered!...and there was no public enquiry into the massacre...the official reason was that the government didnt want to cause anymore stress to the victims and their famalies!!..in other words a coverup to protect themselves!!
    a lot depends on whether the cops will act even if they know something is wrong...or will they stay in their office and do nothing until its too late!
    0
  • i-osprey
    Ahhhh,

    Do you expect our government to be the cure-all? Some of you sound like you want the government to take full control of your lives.

    So, a human killed some other humans, huh? Wow, that has like happened forever.

    The only important part of this story is that this happened in a supposed "Gun-Free Zone." How could he have had a gun in a gun free zone????

    Just an extension of the gun control nuts that believe that ink-stained paper will control people. All the gun-free zone did is keep law abiding citizens from carrying. In this case I don't know if there would have been enough time to stop him if there were people carrying or not but I would have liked to have had the option.

    People will always try to kill other people. All anybody can do is be prepared to protect yourself. Cops, government agents and your mama all have other things to do than follow you everywhere you go make you "safe."

    Please, for the love of freedom and liberty, stop looking to the government for protection. Protect yourself and save billions in tax dollars.
    0
  • KX500
    I think the real theme here is that we had our chance to stop this guy, but didn't. Seems to be the case the majority of the time in tragedies like this.
    0
  • idsman75
    quote:Originally posted by i-osprey
    Ahhhh,

    Do you expect our government to be the cure-all? Some of you sound like you want the government to take full control of your lives.

    So, a human killed some other humans, huh? Wow, that has like happened forever.

    The only important part of this story is that this happened in a supposed "Gun-Free Zone." How could he have had a gun in a gun free zone????

    Just an extension of the gun control nuts that believe that ink-stained paper will control people. All the gun-free zone did is keep law abiding citizens from carrying. In this case I don't know if there would have been enough time to stop him if there were people carrying or not but I would have liked to have had the option.

    People will always try to kill other people. All anybody can do is be prepared to protect yourself. Cops, government agents and your mama all have other things to do than follow you everywhere you go make you "safe."

    Please, for the love of freedom and liberty, stop looking to the government for protection. Protect yourself and save billions in tax dollars.


    My point wasn't about the government controlling lives. My point is that new laws are bound to abound after yet another tragedy like this. Had the government done the right thing at the outset with the rules that were already on the book, he would have been charged with a felony ("Fraudulent Enlistment") and he never would have been able to buy the guns in the first place.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity