In a fully capitalist system it's not an unfair comment to say that more than half of the time the richer person will win, unless they are both rich enough to go into extended legal battles with large legal branches at their backs. And even then they're more likely to settle with each other one way or the other for damage control to avoid paying legal fees. Unfortunately, large branches can just swamp you with large amounts of illegitimate paperwork that you're still obligated to go through and simply exhaust smaller legal offices or solo practicioners. If the court is assigning you an attorney, good luck, that person could even be accepting bribes to make it end as quickly as possible to save the opposing team time and money, because government subsidized lawyer fees are apparently garbage.
Even with both of those he was still able to legally purchase and assault rifle.
I heard a bit on O'Reilly while Dad was watching it. Not sure about the rest of Fox, but what I heard was basically "Obama is going to focus on gun control issues instead of the terrorist issue".
Aren't automatic weapons illegal in a lot of states? I know all assault rifles aren't necessarily automatic, but I don't see the need to allow people to own them. I think legal firearms should be limited to small clip, non-automatic handguns and hunting rifles.
I think that would be about as thorough, effective, and efficient as the TSA in airports. It would cost a massive amount of money to do a thorough psych evaluation with professional staff, so the government would likely do a half-ass job with minimum wage government employees (whose own psychological well-being might be suspect). I think this would accomplish very little.
