Seattle Gunman's father turned Anti by his son's actions

Kind of in the news, kind of 2A, but I had to pick one forum to put it in.

Gunman's father puts his tears of grief to work | Danny Westneat | The Seattle Times


He used to be a "gun dealer" out of his house, but now is mischaracterizing our laws and promoting gun control more like CA suggesting that they take away your rights without due process, anytime you are detained for phycological reasons or arrested for violence. Not convicted or diagnossed, but suspected.

Then he shows his complete lack of knowledge of the historical context and meaning of the words of the 2A:

"I'm a Ron Paul libertarian, so I'm supposed to be against the nanny state," Stawicki says. "But what we have is too far the other way. We have completely forgotten about the 'well-regulated' part of 'well-regulated militia.' "



I get that he is hurting, but more gun laws would not have stopped his son from killing people. If a person really wants to, they will find a way, and taking away others' rights to defend themselves from phychos like his son is not the answer.

sounds good to me. Blame the nations gun laws for his mentally challenged son.
Typical America in 2012.....always find someone or something else to blame for your own screw ups.
As a father, he had nothing to do with raising an idiot son, and if he knew he was dangerous why did he not step in and take away
this kids guns? Yep, its those evil gun laws. No personal responsibility. Sounds all too familiar.
Grieving my butt. He's just looking to find someone else to blame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zonker1986

sounds good to me. Blame the nations gun laws for his mentally challenged son.
Typical America in 2012.....always find someone or something else to blame for your own screw ups.
As a father, he had nothing to do with raising an idiot son, and if he knew he was dangerous why did he not step in and take away
this kids guns? Yep, its those evil gun laws. No personal responsibility. Sounds all too familiar.
Grieving my butt. He's just looking to find someone else to blame.

---

A bit harsh there Zonker... He's not looking for others to blame... he says it's all in his lap now...

If you have a child that has reached the age of majority, you cannot take anything away from them... no matter how sick they are... in some states, you can have them evaluated for 48 hours, if you can get someone else to sign with you (it usually takes 2 people to commit someone involuntarily).

In our new era of "mainstreaming" both kids and adults, we have more of the mentally unbalanced out in public. And that's okay, our somewhat free market system has all sorts of pills they advertise on tv to help with your depression... or other mental deficiency... they even have pills that will supplement the pills you are already taking if the original prescription is not doing enough for you.

We have schizophrenics on the streets... who are medicated, if they took their medication today...

I don't have an answer for the problem... but I know the problem is there.. and it ends frequently in tragedy... whether it's this young man... or Jared Laughner (sp?) or any of the other mainstreamed P___________ opaths (fill in the blank) that we no longer institutionalize.

Regardless of what he says he is transferring some responsibility. He wants someone else to make decisions. IMHO he is just a grieving dad that should not be opining on public policy in his state of anguish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rock and Glock

Regardless of what he says he is transferring some responsibility. He wants someone else to make decisions. IMHO he is just a grieving dad that should not be opining on public policy in his state of anguish.

---

It's always easier to look for solutions from without than from within... He can opine all he wants... that's the first amendment... I'll cut him some slack because he is grieving... soon enough, there will be enough haters to force him into seclusion... others transferring the responsibility of one man's actions on others (the father in this case).

He seems to recognize that his son had problems, and that was the issue. I think they tried to get him help, but he refused.

He is searching for an answer, but coming to the wrong conclusions. More restrictions of individual rights is not the answer. That is how we end up like England, after ever tragedy someone grieving asks for another regulation until all of our rights have been stolen from us in the name of preventing the outliers from doing something that they will continue to do regardless of any new rules we make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigStick

He seems to recognize that his son had problems, and that was the issue. I think they tried to get him help, but he refused.

He is searching for an answer, but coming to the wrong conclusions. More restrictions of individual rights is not the answer. That is how we end up like England, after ever tragedy someone grieving asks for another regulation until all of our rights have been stolen from us in the name of preventing the outliers from doing something that they will continue to do regardless of any new rules we make.

---

^^^^Tru dat ^^^^

The agenda for antis has been to stand in the blood of the victims, and say "We must stop this!" Their only ideas to do so are to blame inanimate objects... or laws... and hold no one accountable, including themselves... As a people we don't cotton to the idea of financing (thru taxes or any other means) aid to those with mental problems... And since the studies of Psychology and Sociology are far from science... there is no clear cut method to help these individuals.

So, we try to medicate them and put them into the general population... and this is what we get...

Who knows what he even really said with the Seattle anti spin. The problem was IMO he may have needed mental help and the family didn't make it ( or his family) a priority.

Seattle has one of the highest suicide rates and it is often attributed to gloomy weather. Maybe they ban bad weather and have free flights to Hawaii for "winter
blues". Same sort of logic

It's called personal responsibility. He feels guilty for not getting him help , having him committed, or informing law enforcement. However it was his son that did it, and the family decided he was mentally ill, not a medical professsional. Perhaps he was just a psychopath. l It's like blaming the car, the knife or wahtever the weapon of choice.


Sent from my 300 baud modem

I feel for the guy. But like others have said, not a good time for him to speak on public policy.


OFF TOPIC BUT RELATED SOMEWHAT: My wife taught English in Japan for a year right after graduating college. The competition for Japanese parents to get their children into a great Pre-school, yes, Pre-school, is fierce. In the year that she was there in Japan there were multiple reports of jealous Japanese mothers stabbing other mothers to death when their kid didn't get into the 'right' preschool. My point is IF a person wants to commit murder bad enough they will find a way.

I'm not so sure that the word regulated meant the same then as it does now.If one could find the definition of regulated in its proper context and of that time period,I think it might just mean "trained". He's doing what all anti gun people do. He blames a tool for somehow making his son do evil deeds, all the while he knows its a lie, its what his son didn't have between his ears that is the problem. He must blame this act on something else (guns) because to put the blame where he knows it belongs is to painful for him. So now, it wasn't his son or the way he was raised,it was those bad evil inanimate objects that somehow come to life and influence people to do wrong. Ron Paul libertarian my butt.

"Well Regulated" could mean everybody taking bathroom breaks at different times so everyone isn't caught with their pants down at the same time

All I can think of are those that grieve over loved ones who are dead because their 2A right had been either stripped away or bureaucratically quagmired by the State.

Grief works both ways on this one.

"I'm a Ron Paul libertarian, so I'm supposed to be against the nanny state," Stawicki says. "But what we have is too far the other way. We have completely forgotten about the 'well-regulated' part of 'well-regulated militia.' "

Pssssssst, someone needs to tell him to re-read the 2nd amendment... No one forgot the "well regulated" part. Stawicki forgot the "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed...." part. Many people forget there are two parts to the 2nd amendment.

A "well regulated" militia in terms of putting limits on the acquisition of firearms was not what the framers of the constitution had in mind. That would totally contradict, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." A "well regulated" militia had to do more with a level of preparedness "for the security of a free state." It had a different translation over 200 years ago which has been lost over the years.

Check this out:

Meaning of the words of the 2A