Would the gun community be opposed to such a measure? - Page 4

Would the gun community be opposed to such a measure?

This is a discussion on Would the gun community be opposed to such a measure? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Stan6406 How about this I am a mental health professional and I HATE guns. How easy would it be for me to ...

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 80
Like Tree40Likes

Thread: Would the gun community be opposed to such a measure?

  1. #46
    Senior Member Array DPro.40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    611
    Quote Originally Posted by Stan6406 View Post
    How about this
    I am a mental health professional and I HATE guns. How easy would it be for me to report you as unfit? And how hard would it be for you to get that reversed?
    Dr's orders please. Wouldn't happen. If a mental Heath professional did that then the wrong person is seeking treatment
    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
    Ronald Reagan


  2. #47
    VIP Member Array Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,411
    As a responsible gun owner, I would object wholeheartedly to anymore legislation, regulation, restrictions, laws, or any other term you choose to put forth. I'm thinking repeal some of these gun laws is the way to go here.

    Mental illness? That is not a slippery slope, that is a vertical cliff.

    Required storage? If it is not worded properly, I could install a bank vault, go on vacation, get robbed and the firearms were subsequently used in a crime, and then I get charged for failing to secure my firearms? The fact that they entered my house illegally should be enough. But noooooo. Some prosecuter looking for the DA slot will use that just so they can chock up another conviction to their record.

    Have friends with kids over - don't let them wander the house unattended. That's called parenting.

    There are already so may laws on the books that do nothing but add charges when someone intentionally goes forth to commit a crime. Words on paper to them, not some magical barrier that will stop them from crossing that line.

    I am beginning to feel like a broken record player...I've posted this so much in the last 4 days. Laws only affect the law abiding citizen, not the individual intent on committing a crime. Your typical law abiding citizen is responsible, and of sound mind. Nuff said.
    Sticks

    Grasseater // Grass~eat~er noun, often attributive \ˈgras-ē-tər\
    A person who is incapable of independent thought; a person who is herd animal-like in behavior; one who cannot distinguish between right and wrong; a foolish person.
    See also Sheep

  3. #48
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,788
    Sticks,

    We agree that parents should be responsible for their children. Should not gun owners be responsible for keeping their guns out of the hands of irresponsible or mentally unfit people?
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  4. #49
    VIP Member Array Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,411
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    Sticks,

    We agree that parents should be responsible for their children. Should not gun owners be responsible for keeping their guns out of the hands of irresponsible or mentally unfit people?
    No. I should not be responsible for anyone but me and mine. The underlined above is waaaaay to broad a statement. My firearms are either in my physical possession, or secured in my home/place of current residence. That should be sufficient in the eyes of the law. Since I do not choose to associate with "stupid" ~ irresponsible ~, or mentally unstable individuals (by my definition which is a bit tighter than medical) or allow such persons into my home, it's a non issue.
    Sticks

    Grasseater // Grass~eat~er noun, often attributive \ˈgras-ē-tər\
    A person who is incapable of independent thought; a person who is herd animal-like in behavior; one who cannot distinguish between right and wrong; a foolish person.
    See also Sheep

  5. #50
    Distinguished Member Array dangerranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Exact center of CA
    Posts
    1,736
    Yes the mental health issue is a slippery slope, But if I unloaded a truck load of ARs with ammo, and magazines in a school yard with 30 upstanding citizens standing around them what would happen?.. A school shooting? No? The best protected school in the USA?....Id say Yes! Now lets replace the 30 upstanding citizens with 30 mental defectives, How safe is the school now? We allow your right to drive be removed or restricted on a doctors order Why not a gun or even access to a gun. Currently If a Dr takes your driving privilege in CA you have a hearing with the DMV and a chance to show that you are or are not a danger to your self or others. And just so Face to face purchases are covered put a mark on every Id card so that I can know if you are in a prohibited class. DR

  6. #51
    VIP Member Array Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,411
    Careful everyone! What happens in Cali eventually happens across the country. A cancer we can't cure.
    Sticks

    Grasseater // Grass~eat~er noun, often attributive \ˈgras-ē-tər\
    A person who is incapable of independent thought; a person who is herd animal-like in behavior; one who cannot distinguish between right and wrong; a foolish person.
    See also Sheep

  7. #52
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Sticks View Post
    No. I should not be responsible for anyone but me and mine. The underlined above is waaaaay to broad a statement. My firearms are either in my physical possession, or secured in my home/place of current residence. That should be sufficient in the eyes of the law. Since I do not choose to associate with "stupid" ~ irresponsible ~, or mentally unstable individuals (by my definition which is a bit tighter than medical) or allow such persons into my home, it's a non issue.
    Aren't your firearms "me and mine". I never suggested people be responsible for others, only responsible for keeping their property "guns" away from others who could be potentially dangerous. If you keep your firearms secure and out of the hands of others who might do irresponsible or dangerous things with them then you are doing what I suggested be required of gun owners in this thread.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  8. #53
    Member Array BWBracelets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    87

    Re: Would the gun community be opposed to such a measure?

    Didn't read the whole thread, but on the discussion of definitions...

    Who decides the definitions of certain words is just as important as the definitions themselves. A bureaucrat might include conservatism as part of the definition of mental illness. Then we're all ineligible to own firearms.

    www.getcorded.com

  9. #54
    Member Array cayman_shen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    242
    EVERYONE has a mental illness these days. You can't throw a rock without hitting someone on meds for depression. I've been on them myself. I think the bar for denying someone based on mental illness has to be clearly defined and very high. If a depressed person wants to shoot himself he has that right imo, just as he has the right to drink or smoke himself to death. If a person has a history of violence or delusions, that's a different can o' worms...
    MrsHB likes this.

  10. #55
    VIP Member Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    6,229
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    Aren't your firearms "me and mine". I never suggested people be responsible for others, only responsible for keeping their property "guns" away from others who could be potentially dangerous. If you keep your firearms secure and out of the hands of others who might do irresponsible or dangerous things with them then you are doing what I suggested be required of gun owners in this thread.
    Seriously, what is going on with people on this forum?

    You can not legislate away evil acts. If you could, it would have been done long ago.

    You can not forbid me from keeping and bearing Arms because I live with someone who does not meet your perfect standards.

    You can not regulate how I live my life in my home because someone in my home doesn't meet your standards of perfection.

    Reasonable people will take reasonable measures to protect their loved ones from harming themselves and others. People can do this on their own. We don't need government to do it for us or regulate how we should do it.

    Having a mental issue does not automatically make you an evil person.

    We have a problem with evil people.

    Evil people do evil things.

    Evil people who want to kill other people will accomplish their goals or they will die trying.

    When an evil person tries to perform an evil act it is our job as good people to stop them.

    If we notice that someone close to us appears to be heading down an evil path, it is our job as good people to immediately put a stop to it.

    If you fail to notice or you fail to react, you have nothing and no one to blame but yourself.

    A good person will not magically turn into an evil person simply by seeing or touching a gun.

    Good people who do not meet your standards of perfection will not magically turn into evil people simply by seeing or touching a gun.
    Sticks likes this.
    Regards,
    1MoreGoodGuy
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member


    Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!

  11. #56
    VIP Member Array Richard58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Charlotte area of North Carolina
    Posts
    2,106
    this nutcase stole legally owned guns from his mother. I think the mom should have seen far enough ahead with all the known prior mental problems her son had to have at least had those weapons in a gun safe with a combination lock. If I had a known nutcase living under the same roof as me I couldn't lay down and close my eyes with weapons within his reach.
    The police are not there to protect you from crime, they are there to arrest the guy after the crime has been committed, assuming they find him. It is your responsibility to protect yourself and your family.

  12. #57
    VIP Member Array Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,411
    Mothers (well, parents in general) are genetically blind to the shortcomings of their offspring, even after the said offspring commit some atrocious act (read the news - it's a daily event).

    This blindness hit epidemic levels 2 generations ago when the people stated insisting that the Govt raise and protect their children for them (thus eliminating Darwin from the equation), and discipline went out the window.
    1MoreGoodGuy likes this.
    Sticks

    Grasseater // Grass~eat~er noun, often attributive \ˈgras-ē-tər\
    A person who is incapable of independent thought; a person who is herd animal-like in behavior; one who cannot distinguish between right and wrong; a foolish person.
    See also Sheep

  13. #58
    Senior Moderator
    Array limatunes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    4,246
    This seems like one of those "blame-game" gimmicks.. If we can spread it around then maybe we can find some reasons why/how this could happen and then we can fix it so it doesn't happen again.

    No offense, farronwolf, but why is it so darn impossible to put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the person responsible?

    You gave the example of you owning a car that a drunk driver gets behind the wheel of. You say you would be responsible. Ummmm.. how? Everything short of handing the guy your keys and saying, "Here, you drive," is not on you. So you left your keys in plain sight. First, did you know that the individual was drinking? Did you encourage him to get in your car and drive? How far should you be required to go to prove you tried to keep your car from him? Should you have a lock box for your keys? Should you be required to carry your keys on you at all times? Should you have GPS on all of your friends who have problems with alcohol. Sounds a bit silly, doesn't it? If your friend got in your car without your knowledge and drove drunk HE would be the one who would go to jail and be liable for any damage he did in the mean-time.

    Now, I strongly believe that we do have a moral and ethical responsibility to be responsible with our possessions but trying to take a step further into legislation and punitive damages for the actions of others is getting out there.

    For instance: my cousin has a known drug problem. He has been caught stealing from family members to support his drug habits. His actions caused many members of the family to do the responsible and smart thing and purchase safes and be more vigilant about keeping their firearms and valuables locked away. That being said, if he goes to his brother's house and steals a shotgun his brother left out to clean after going hunting and goes and performs an armed robbery that is on no one but himself. The brother did nothing illegal. He did nothing wrong and I have no doubt he will spend a goodly amount of time wishing he'd taken the extra step to lock up his shotgun, but the moral and legal responsibility should be at the feet of the individual who commits the crime.

  14. #59
    Member Array Wheelspinner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida, west of the Suwanee.
    Posts
    78
    Too many questions without answers. Leave the 2A as it is, paperwork required for a gun purchase is all that is needed. It works...stop looking for answers that do not exist. The absence of any one question on the application did not cause this mayhem in Conn.

  15. #60
    Senior Member Array CanuckQue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Maritimes Canada
    Posts
    1,141
    My car is insured, and it's insured for the people who I lend my car to. If I make my car too easy to steal, or if I lend it to someone unqualified, I run the risk of my insurance not being on the hook for any damages.

    Something similar for gun is what I'd like to see. Want to own a gun? Have insurance for negligence. The insurance companies can run the risk assessments. If gun culture is really safe in your neck of the woods, then the premiums will be really low.
    Our current plan for Universal Iron Lung coverage, just sayin'.
    Wisest. Retirement. Plan. Ever.
    Good thing the March of Dimes worked. How, why?

    Alternately, for those with a tool shed, ideas, or creative loved ones to tell..


Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

mental illness firearms

,

what does that mean lawful defense of person or property

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors