Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Neil A. MacGinnis was Having a Bad Week

 
Christiansburg Police Department/Associated Press - This photo provided by the Christiansburg Police Department shows Neil Allan MacInnis, of Christiansburg, Va.

The Washington Post

Our original post at the time of the incident.

The suspect in a shooting at a community college that injured two women legally purchased his weapon two days earlier and told detectives after his arrest he “was having a bad week,” police said Monday.

The Christiansburg Police Department said in a news release that Neil A. MacInnis, 18, purchased the 12-gauge shotgun allegedly used in Friday’s shooting from a licensed firearms dealer. Court records identified the seller as Walmart.

First of all, 18-year-olds should not be allowed to buy guns legally.  Secondly, without proper gun control like I suggest, young men who have a history of juvenile problems will continue to be considered qualified. "May issue" for gun ownership would put a stop to that.

The off-duty guard who stopped him was only able to do so after he fired 9 shots. Good thing the disturbed Mr. MacGinnis wasn't a better aim, huh?

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

10 comments:

  1. So they're old enough to be drafted and to bleed and die for their country--and they're old enough to vote, making a choice regarding who leads the free world, who starts wars, and who writes gun laws. They're old enough to get married and start having children, buy a house, buy a car, etc.

    But 18 year olds are too young to be allowed to buy a shotgun to use to hunt food or to defend their home? You already prevent them from buying a pistol for home defense, but now you want to ban them from all firearms.

    All because one guy misused his right, you would take those rights from young adults and leave them defenseless?

    Frankly, that's a pretty despicable way to treat a whole class of adults.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Federal minimum age for the purchase (not possession however) of any modern powder firearm is 18 years, for a long arm and 21 years for handguns, provided that such handguns are sold at a FFL dealer, otherwise the minimum age is only 18. One must be at least 21 to register a NFA item. Similar restrictions apply to all modern powder based ammunition, as such rifle and shotgun shells are restricted to those who are at least 18, while handgun ammunition must be sold to persons over 21. There is no federal prohibition against children (such as the ones described in Mike's post) possessing long arms (the minimum age for handgun possession is 18).

      The minimum age for possession of any firearms under any circumstances ought to be raised to 21 (or preferably 25) years. In accordance with such, the age of majority and age of consent should also follow suit, all to be set at 21 (or 25). Adult children (American rednecks) with guns is bad enough. Allowing their intolerable offspring to be armed is even worse. How could anyone disagree? Such a prohibition would have no effect on any of those involved in the discussion, so why would anyone oppose such a "ban"?

      Conservatives (who you presumably identify with) ought to agree, as such are likely to support restrictions on juvenile parties, and subsequently support such measures, as such would not affect anyone who would be likely to comment here, as well as satisfying the desires of gun control advocates while having no affect on the use of arms by those who support the erroneous "right" for mere citizens to keep and bear arms.

      Delete
    2. E.N. Go eat some poorly prepared Fugu and rid us of your inane babbling about tyranny.

      Delete
    3. The primal violence which has become endemic in our society is the direct result of the scourge of onanism (caused by a diet rich in the consumption of meat and the lack of the enema), a plague cast upon us by the liberal elite in an attempt to trust our society into the abyss of the resulting violence, and therefore provide justification to their depraved goals of enslavement to the primeval desires.

      We shall not be fooled. We know who you are and the depraved goals you plan to achieve with such a diet of perversion, the infliction of the solitary self-abuse opiate of onanism, the nefarious and intentional infliction of perverted sexual desires (fetishes, rampant homosexuality, psychosexual objectification, unapproved affairs, and the lewd excesses all too common in marriage). All the result of poor diet, lack of exercise, and the retention of fecal matter caused by the utter lack of enema necessary for the preservation of physical health and sanity.

      It is a Fact, supported by proven Science, medical research, and intensive statistical analysis that the decline of Western Civilization is directly correlated with the average number of sexual partners that homosexuals have over a lifetime.

      I therefore pose a question: What do you believe to be the average number of sexual partners that homosexuals have over a lifetime?

      Delete
    4. The consumption of fish (Pufferfish), as well as any other meat, is therefore to be considered an unnatural and perverted dietary aspect, as such pollutes the bowels, body and mind with the seeds of the most base and animalistic passion, and is the primary cause of most disease, and violence in our society.

      Delete
    5. 18-year-olds are too young to do any of those things, in my opinion, Tennesseean.

      Delete
    6. Well, at least you're being consistent if you're going to move the age of majority to an older age. Not that I agree with the need for such a move, but I can appreciate consistency as opposed to the usual thing from the left: "18 year olds are too young to own weapons!" "18 year olds MUST be given special treatment to make it even easier for them to Vote! We must have as many Youth Votes as possible!"

      Delete
  2. The good news is that none of your proposals look likely to pass. Too bad for you that we cling to our rights.

    ReplyDelete
  3. May issue would stop me from owning guns as well. Everytime I have to ask, the answer is "no".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is a conflict of interests for the State to endow the mere civilian with the privilege of arming oneself.

      Delete