Shooting at Las Vegas casino

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.

"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.”

 

Exactly.

Gun buyers would be asked to take something like the Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality Profile as part of the licensing procedure.

Which likewise applies to dq's post above.

 

I have an old high school friend, a guy I adore, who has had all kind of psychiatric issues. Drugs. Depression, probably. Last time I saw him, at my Super Bowl party, he told me that he had been institutionalized at one point. We sat out on the porch swing, smoked a cigarette, and talked about life. He's jobless right now, I believe, and has been for a while. He's a flaming lefty - he was the "weird kid" in high school. The guy who listened to ambient and industrial bands that no one outside of an artist's colony in Berlin has ever heard of.

He owns a cache of weaponry that would make David Koresh blush.

It gets to me. A lot. I feel compelled to reach out to him, and have at times. At other times, as a father of two young children, it feels irresponsible of me to put myself into the potential line of fire. (And then I wonder: Am I stereotyping mental illness? I'm on a mental health non-profit board for Christ's sake.)

 

It also raises the question of who would you have doing the psychological profiles, and what constitutes a pass/fail?
You're advocating the firearms equivalent of the DMV, where a handful of civil servants with way too much power (and possibly an agenda) can deny someone a constitutional right. Similar to the county clerks who deny marriage licenses to gay couples on religious grounds.

 

This is one of the biggest problems right now. We barely know what is and is not within the orbit of the Second Amendment. We know that there exist an individual right to bear arms. But in practice we have absolutely no idea how that applies in practice.

 

What's too much? I routinely purchase a brick (500 rounds) of .22 ammo, which we'll go through in an afternoon of plinking. When my father-in-law was working as a duck guide in the Delta flyway, he would order entire pallets of 12 gauge shotgun shells for his clients to use.

Most gun shows involved licensed dealers. Same restrictions apply there as if you walk into a BassPro or Walmart to buy a firearm. (Of course, BPS and WMT don't have tables of Nazi and Confederate memorabilia on display.)

 

This, from 2015, seems almost appropriate...

An Open Rant Aimed at Those Who Would Repeal the Second Amendment

 

It's possible that he meant to get behind cover and make yourself as small as you can. The problem is that the shooter was elevated and shooting into a bare flat parking lot with little real cover, and "getting small" is more psychological than physical.

 

Totally agree with him. It's what I posted earlier: Democrats need to take the position that they unequivocally support repealing and replacing the Second Amendment.

 

I'm convinced that's the most likely interpretation. I was simply wondering aloud whether that's the only possibility.

 

I don't know.

But plenty of private companies and government institutions use profiles like these as a condition of employment. Surely there's a standard of some kind that kind be applied.