<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Idiots With Guns</title>
	<atom:link href="http://xrlq.com/2005/12/18/idiots-with-guns/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://xrlq.com/2005/12/18/idiots-with-guns/</link>
	<description>Politische Kommentare mit Snarkenremarken</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 18:16:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://xrlq.com/2005/12/18/idiots-with-guns/comment-page-1/#comment-87982</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:25:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xrlq.com/?p=2697#comment-87982</guid>
		<description>If you go to a psychiatric ward in a hospital voluntarily then it doesn&#039;t really count as being &quot;committed&quot;; mainly because you really aren&#039;t a &quot;threat&quot;, if you have been involuntarily, well... then I guess you are generally screwed if you want to get a gun license.  

There are a lot of alcoholics actually that go to those places voluntarily for instance.  Another thing to keep in mind is that there is a lot of poor record keeping...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you go to a psychiatric ward in a hospital voluntarily then it doesn&#8217;t really count as being &#8220;committed&#8221;; mainly because you really aren&#8217;t a &#8220;threat&#8221;, if you have been involuntarily, well&#8230; then I guess you are generally screwed if you want to get a gun license.  </p>
<p>There are a lot of alcoholics actually that go to those places voluntarily for instance.  Another thing to keep in mind is that there is a lot of poor record keeping&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim Lambert's Sock Puppet</title>
		<link>http://xrlq.com/2005/12/18/idiots-with-guns/comment-page-1/#comment-42716</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim Lambert's Sock Puppet</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2005 03:45:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xrlq.com/?p=2697#comment-42716</guid>
		<description>See?  He still didn&#039;t deny it.  All he said was that he WILL deny it!  Liar, liar, pants on fire.  And no, I won&#039;t get a life.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>See?  He still didn&#8217;t deny it.  All he said was that he WILL deny it!  Liar, liar, pants on fire.  And no, I won&#8217;t get a life.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Fumento</title>
		<link>http://xrlq.com/2005/12/18/idiots-with-guns/comment-page-1/#comment-42714</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Fumento</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2005 03:05:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xrlq.com/?p=2697#comment-42714</guid>
		<description>Tim Lambert, little child of the Outback, is desperate for me to post a comment on his website denying that I set up a sock puppet. For one, he&#039;d sell his mother&#039;s soul to increase his declining blog rankings by one iota. For another, he&#039;d succeed in making me break my vow not to post on his silly little site. So he continues to say I&#039;ve made no denial since I&#039;ve made none on Deltoid -- a rather egocentric view of the world to say the least. What&#039;s most interesting is the paucity of comments he&#039;s gotten on his &quot;still no denial&quot; charge and even the lack of interest shown by those who did comment. In other words, if I did set up a sock puppet it appears nobody but Lambert and his human sockpuppet John (&quot;Duh, whaddya want me to say, Tim?&quot;) Fleck seems to care. Alternatively, they may not believe Lambert. Might be a reason for that, since he&#039;s played these games before and set up his own sock puppets. So again and for the last time I will deny ON THIS SITE but not on Lambert&#039;s that I have never posted under any name but my own, his ability to slap together a name with my IP address on a graphic notwithstanding. (I&#039;ll bet he spends his spare time putting actresses heads on the bodies of nude models.)

Finally Tim, if you won&#039;t get psychiatric help then at least get something else -- a life.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tim Lambert, little child of the Outback, is desperate for me to post a comment on his website denying that I set up a sock puppet. For one, he&#8217;d sell his mother&#8217;s soul to increase his declining blog rankings by one iota. For another, he&#8217;d succeed in making me break my vow not to post on his silly little site. So he continues to say I&#8217;ve made no denial since I&#8217;ve made none on Deltoid &#8212; a rather egocentric view of the world to say the least. What&#8217;s most interesting is the paucity of comments he&#8217;s gotten on his &#8220;still no denial&#8221; charge and even the lack of interest shown by those who did comment. In other words, if I did set up a sock puppet it appears nobody but Lambert and his human sockpuppet John (&#8220;Duh, whaddya want me to say, Tim?&#8221;) Fleck seems to care. Alternatively, they may not believe Lambert. Might be a reason for that, since he&#8217;s played these games before and set up his own sock puppets. So again and for the last time I will deny ON THIS SITE but not on Lambert&#8217;s that I have never posted under any name but my own, his ability to slap together a name with my IP address on a graphic notwithstanding. (I&#8217;ll bet he spends his spare time putting actresses heads on the bodies of nude models.)</p>
<p>Finally Tim, if you won&#8217;t get psychiatric help then at least get something else &#8212; a life.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SayUncle</title>
		<link>http://xrlq.com/2005/12/18/idiots-with-guns/comment-page-1/#comment-42677</link>
		<dc:creator>SayUncle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:52:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xrlq.com/?p=2697#comment-42677</guid>
		<description>Seems my original inclination, the cause of my rant, was &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.livejournal.com/users/mixedstate/43825.html?thread=100401#t100401&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;correct&lt;/a&gt;:

&lt;blockquote&gt;When I initially wrote the piece, I did not yet have a permit.&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Seems my original inclination, the cause of my rant, was <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/mixedstate/43825.html?thread=100401#t100401" rel="nofollow">correct</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>When I initially wrote the piece, I did not yet have a permit.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SayUncle &#187; Shomo - The Last Bit</title>
		<link>http://xrlq.com/2005/12/18/idiots-with-guns/comment-page-1/#comment-42657</link>
		<dc:creator>SayUncle &#187; Shomo - The Last Bit</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:49:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xrlq.com/?p=2697#comment-42657</guid>
		<description>[...] Via Xrlq, Aubrey Ellen Shomo addresses her critics addresses the following allegations: I do not have a CCW permit. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Via Xrlq, Aubrey Ellen Shomo addresses her critics addresses the following allegations: I do not have a CCW permit. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Xrlq</title>
		<link>http://xrlq.com/2005/12/18/idiots-with-guns/comment-page-1/#comment-42623</link>
		<dc:creator>Xrlq</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:38:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xrlq.com/?p=2697#comment-42623</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;The word adjudicated is central here.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

No, it&#039;s not.  It&#039;s a two part question.  The first part asks if you have been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjucated mentally defective).  Presumably, the answer to &lt;i&gt;that&lt;/i&gt; part of the question is no.  The second part merely asks if you have ever been committed to a mental institution.  It doesn&#039;t say anything about courts, or adjudication; just were you committed.

&lt;blockquote&gt;I may have been locked in against my will, but the law says I was a voluntary patient.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

That&#039;s probably true, for the second reason you gave (that your confinement was voluntary on the part of your parents), but adjudication vs. lack thereof is irrelevant.

&lt;blockquote&gt;That said, I probably should have had to prove it.  Nothing, under the law, separates me from anyone else with my past who might - very understandably - not be the sort of person the General Assembly of the State of Colorado wants to see armed.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

That&#039;s an interesting hypothetical possibility, but unless the State of Colorado has had a rash of shootings by crazed maniacs with concealed carry permits, what&#039;s the point of raising it?  Also, while your article claims that Colorado is required to give CCWs to anyone who meets basic critieria even if they are a threat to society, that&#039;s not quite true.  Colo. Rev. Stat. 18-12-203(2) provides as follows:

&lt;blockquote&gt;Regardless of whether an applicant meets the criteria specified in subsection (1) of this section, if the sheriff has a reasonable belief that documented previous behavior by the applicant makes it likely the applicant will present a danger to self or others if the applicant receives a permit to carry a concealed handgun, the sheriff may deny the permit.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Now, after railing against your own state&#039;s shall-issue law, you admit that for all the snickering about your non-committal commitment, you probably &lt;i&gt;should&lt;/i&gt; be allowed to carry a gun - a position I don&#039;t dispute.  By contrast, I can&#039;t carry a gun myself.  I&#039;ll give you three guess as to which of the following reasons is why, and the first two don&#039;t count:

&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;I am a convicted felon.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Ha, ha, just kidding.  Actually, I &lt;em&gt;wasn&#039;t&lt;/em&gt; convicted, I was acquitted by reason of insanity.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;I am a convicted misdemeanant who either has or has not stopped beating his wife.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;I am an illegal alien.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;I am a fugitive from justice, and too stupid to know better than to say that when filling out a form.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;I am a resident of a may-issue state.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;

Meanwhile, you complain about a hypothetical problem in Colorado&#039;s shall-issue law which, by your own admission, didn&#039;t really materialize in your own case, except in the sense that you weren&#039;t challenged enough to prove ... whatever.  Forest, meet trees.  Trees, forest.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>The word adjudicated is central here.</p></blockquote>
<p>No, it&#8217;s not.  It&#8217;s a two part question.  The first part asks if you have been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjucated mentally defective).  Presumably, the answer to <i>that</i> part of the question is no.  The second part merely asks if you have ever been committed to a mental institution.  It doesn&#8217;t say anything about courts, or adjudication; just were you committed.</p>
<blockquote><p>I may have been locked in against my will, but the law says I was a voluntary patient.</p></blockquote>
<p>That&#8217;s probably true, for the second reason you gave (that your confinement was voluntary on the part of your parents), but adjudication vs. lack thereof is irrelevant.</p>
<blockquote><p>That said, I probably should have had to prove it.  Nothing, under the law, separates me from anyone else with my past who might &#8211; very understandably &#8211; not be the sort of person the General Assembly of the State of Colorado wants to see armed.</p></blockquote>
<p>That&#8217;s an interesting hypothetical possibility, but unless the State of Colorado has had a rash of shootings by crazed maniacs with concealed carry permits, what&#8217;s the point of raising it?  Also, while your article claims that Colorado is required to give CCWs to anyone who meets basic critieria even if they are a threat to society, that&#8217;s not quite true.  Colo. Rev. Stat. 18-12-203(2) provides as follows:</p>
<blockquote><p>Regardless of whether an applicant meets the criteria specified in subsection (1) of this section, if the sheriff has a reasonable belief that documented previous behavior by the applicant makes it likely the applicant will present a danger to self or others if the applicant receives a permit to carry a concealed handgun, the sheriff may deny the permit.</p></blockquote>
<p>Now, after railing against your own state&#8217;s shall-issue law, you admit that for all the snickering about your non-committal commitment, you probably <i>should</i> be allowed to carry a gun &#8211; a position I don&#8217;t dispute.  By contrast, I can&#8217;t carry a gun myself.  I&#8217;ll give you three guess as to which of the following reasons is why, and the first two don&#8217;t count:</p>
<ol>
<li>I am a convicted felon.</li>
<li>Ha, ha, just kidding.  Actually, I <em>wasn&#8217;t</em> convicted, I was acquitted by reason of insanity.</li>
<li>I am a convicted misdemeanant who either has or has not stopped beating his wife.</li>
<li>I am an illegal alien.</li>
<li>I am a fugitive from justice, and too stupid to know better than to say that when filling out a form.</li>
<li>I am a resident of a may-issue state.</li>
</ol>
<p>Meanwhile, you complain about a hypothetical problem in Colorado&#8217;s shall-issue law which, by your own admission, didn&#8217;t really materialize in your own case, except in the sense that you weren&#8217;t challenged enough to prove &#8230; whatever.  Forest, meet trees.  Trees, forest.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aubrey Ellen Shomo</title>
		<link>http://xrlq.com/2005/12/18/idiots-with-guns/comment-page-1/#comment-42616</link>
		<dc:creator>Aubrey Ellen Shomo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2005 23:23:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xrlq.com/?p=2697#comment-42616</guid>
		<description>From: http://www.livejournal.com/users/mixedstate/43825.html

I have heard quite a bit of controversy about my CCW permit course and my permit.

The allegations:

&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;I do not have a CCW permit.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;I violated state and/or federal law in handling a weapon, or in applying for a permit, or that I must have lied on my application form.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;I am a psycho.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;

My responses:

&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.aubreyellenshomo.net/images/MyCCWPermit.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;My Permit&quot;/&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Any questions?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The form reads, &quot;Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?&quot;

My article reads &quot;Ever been committed? Snicker. Technically, no. Not by a court.&quot;

The word adjudicated is central here.  I have not been so adjudicated.

As for a commitment, my parents signed me in voluntarily.  I may have been locked in against my will, but the law says I was a voluntary patient. 

As such, I answered question 9 no.  Should my past be a policy issue?  Probably.  Did I lie?  No.  I didn&#039;t have to.  That&#039;s the point.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;This threatened a lot of people.  There were a lot of conservative blog comments about it.  If it were madness, why, oh why, the need to debunk it?

Should I be allowed to own a firearm now?  Yes, I believe so.  I have a completely clean bill of mental health.  That said, I probably should have had to prove it.  Nothing, under the law, separates me from anyone else with my past who might - very understandably - not be the sort of person the General Assembly of the State of Colorado wants to see armed.

Also, I make no attempt to hide my history.  I mentioned it in the article, and it&#039;s all a google search away.  It was when I got my permit, too.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;

So, to the detractors that claim I am not entitled to own a firearm, or carry one concealed.  I am.  To those who claim I lied.  I did not.

My point is about how easy it is to get a permit, and about how stereotypical my instructors were.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From: <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/mixedstate/43825.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.livejournal.com/users/mixedstate/43825.html</a></p>
<p>I have heard quite a bit of controversy about my CCW permit course and my permit.</p>
<p>The allegations:</p>
<ol>
<li>I do not have a CCW permit.</li>
<li>I violated state and/or federal law in handling a weapon, or in applying for a permit, or that I must have lied on my application form.</li>
<li>I am a psycho.</li>
</ol>
<p>My responses:</p>
<ol>
<li><img src="http://www.aubreyellenshomo.net/images/MyCCWPermit.jpg" alt="My Permit"/>
<p>Any questions?</li>
<li>The form reads, &#8220;Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?&#8221;
<p>My article reads &#8220;Ever been committed? Snicker. Technically, no. Not by a court.&#8221;</p>
<p>The word adjudicated is central here.  I have not been so adjudicated.</p>
<p>As for a commitment, my parents signed me in voluntarily.  I may have been locked in against my will, but the law says I was a voluntary patient. </p>
<p>As such, I answered question 9 no.  Should my past be a policy issue?  Probably.  Did I lie?  No.  I didn&#8217;t have to.  That&#8217;s the point.</li>
<li>This threatened a lot of people.  There were a lot of conservative blog comments about it.  If it were madness, why, oh why, the need to debunk it?
<p>Should I be allowed to own a firearm now?  Yes, I believe so.  I have a completely clean bill of mental health.  That said, I probably should have had to prove it.  Nothing, under the law, separates me from anyone else with my past who might &#8211; very understandably &#8211; not be the sort of person the General Assembly of the State of Colorado wants to see armed.</p>
<p>Also, I make no attempt to hide my history.  I mentioned it in the article, and it&#8217;s all a google search away.  It was when I got my permit, too.</li>
</ol>
<p>So, to the detractors that claim I am not entitled to own a firearm, or carry one concealed.  I am.  To those who claim I lied.  I did not.</p>
<p>My point is about how easy it is to get a permit, and about how stereotypical my instructors were.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Xrlq</title>
		<link>http://xrlq.com/2005/12/18/idiots-with-guns/comment-page-1/#comment-42553</link>
		<dc:creator>Xrlq</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:59:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xrlq.com/?p=2697#comment-42553</guid>
		<description>She may have intended to lie, but I doubt that&#039;s enough if the statement she gave is in fact accurate.  Generally, you can&#039;t charge someone with an attempt crime if the act they attempted wasn&#039;t a crime, even though that person may have falsely believed that it was at the time.  It&#039;s basically the flip side of &quot;ignorance of the law is no excuse&quot; - as surely as a false belief it &lt;i&gt;wasn&#039;t&lt;/i&gt; a crime won&#039;t exonerate you, a false belief that it &lt;i&gt;was&lt;/i&gt; won&#039;t incriminate you.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>She may have intended to lie, but I doubt that&#8217;s enough if the statement she gave is in fact accurate.  Generally, you can&#8217;t charge someone with an attempt crime if the act they attempted wasn&#8217;t a crime, even though that person may have falsely believed that it was at the time.  It&#8217;s basically the flip side of &#8220;ignorance of the law is no excuse&#8221; &#8211; as surely as a false belief it <i>wasn&#8217;t</i> a crime won&#8217;t exonerate you, a false belief that it <i>was</i> won&#8217;t incriminate you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rustmeister</title>
		<link>http://xrlq.com/2005/12/18/idiots-with-guns/comment-page-1/#comment-42552</link>
		<dc:creator>Rustmeister</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:06:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xrlq.com/?p=2697#comment-42552</guid>
		<description>I do believe she displayed intent to lie on the form. Carrying one quote above out a little further, she wrote 

&quot;Ever been committed? Snicker. Technically, no. Not by a court. Am I a fugitive from justice? I bet fugitives usually answer that one honestly.&quot;

That tells me she knows she&#039;s lying and tries to justify it with that last sentance.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I do believe she displayed intent to lie on the form. Carrying one quote above out a little further, she wrote </p>
<p>&#8220;Ever been committed? Snicker. Technically, no. Not by a court. Am I a fugitive from justice? I bet fugitives usually answer that one honestly.&#8221;</p>
<p>That tells me she knows she&#8217;s lying and tries to justify it with that last sentance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Xrlq</title>
		<link>http://xrlq.com/2005/12/18/idiots-with-guns/comment-page-1/#comment-42551</link>
		<dc:creator>Xrlq</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:04:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xrlq.com/?p=2697#comment-42551</guid>
		<description>She admitted she didn&#039;t self-commit, but she also said she got out when she was 16, as soon as she was old enough to fire her psychiatrist.  That sounds to me like the decision to commit her before was her parents&#039;, not the hospital&#039;s.  If that&#039;s the case, her stay in the looney bin may well have been &quot;voluntary&quot; for purposes of the federal statute.  Frankly, I hope so; else we&#039;ve got a lifetime ban on gun ownership not just by people who were crazy at one point, but also by people whose parents happened to be the psychological equivalent of hypochondriacs.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>She admitted she didn&#8217;t self-commit, but she also said she got out when she was 16, as soon as she was old enough to fire her psychiatrist.  That sounds to me like the decision to commit her before was her parents&#8217;, not the hospital&#8217;s.  If that&#8217;s the case, her stay in the looney bin may well have been &#8220;voluntary&#8221; for purposes of the federal statute.  Frankly, I hope so; else we&#8217;ve got a lifetime ban on gun ownership not just by people who were crazy at one point, but also by people whose parents happened to be the psychological equivalent of hypochondriacs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

