April 24th, 2007 11:41 PM
Great Post Limatunes...
Look at it like this...
Sometimes I think if this bill were passed it would be a good thing. Other times I think it would open the door to disaster.
Just how many "gun bills" that have been passed by Congress in the last 50 years can be considered "good" ?
I dare say very few.
Any progress in gun ownership has come from the states themselves...the Federal Government had nothing to do with it.
On the other hand,whenever we get an antigun President, some anti-gun politicians that like to make noise, and some antigunners with an agenda to pass, we do nothing but LOSE freedom.
They pass laws that do nothing except to tell us what kind of stocks our guns cant have, how many bullets they can hold, and any gun that looks the least bit dangerous gets put on a list and all of a sudden we can buy one any more. These laws are nothing but "feel good" laws that some immoral heathens press upon us as an excuse to stick out their chests and brag about how safe they are making society while the average thug just smirks because they dont abide by the laws like we do and they find it somewhat incredible that most lawmakers dont know this, nor are they capable of understanding it...and the few that do just dont care.
And we want these same folks making up a list that defines what is crazy behavior and what aint?
If that dont open the door to disaster nothing will.
I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.
AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
April 25th, 2007 07:42 PM
The details are wrong.
Originally Posted by sojourner
The bill will not require ALL mental health issues to be reported, just those defined by federal law... and ALL mental health issues will not be disqualifying. The states have been required since, IIRC 1968 to report this information, but there is no penalty for failure to do so... so most states' reporting is very spotty. Virginia supposedly is one of the most up-to-date and Cho STILL got thru.
The types of mental health issues covered are actually very limited. You would have to be adjudicated by a judge (with supporting mental health evaluations) that you are a danger to yourself or others.
If your PTSD is so bad that a that someone takes the time to go to court over it, and you are deemed a danger to yourself or others by a psychiatrist (who has to actually examine and evaluate you) and a judge agrees... if someone is willing to go to that much trouble, you probably ARE too messed up to possess firearms.
"I am a Soldier. I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight." GEN George S. Patton, Jr.
April 26th, 2007 12:00 AM
I'd like to add that this could be a very slippery slope. The definitions must be absolute, open to no interpretation. Not only could the temporary depression be an issue, but someone had mentioned a "what's next," where someone else in your family that may be under treatment for depression could affect your ability to own a firearm. Also, would this allow access to medical records in general?
Originally Posted by P95Carry
"I've got a mind like a steel trap... things wander in, and get mangled."
-Fabbrica d'Armi P. Beretta, dal 1526
April 26th, 2007 12:31 AM
Read somewhere that it is wise to avoid slippery slopes anytime firearms are involved. Torn on the issue really. One one side this is nothing that does not already exsist on a federal level. On the other the meaning of words change too fast to trust the Government.
Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.
April 26th, 2007 01:22 AM
We have some very articulate people on this forum and I am super impressed. I will not even try to call you by name but some of you are brilliant!
Some of you sound like the anti gun people.
Yes a world with out bad people would be wonderful but it is not going to happen here on earth until Jesus Christ returns for his 1000 year reign.
Bad people will always get guns, and sick people will always go undiagnosed. Innocent people will be found guilty, and guilty people found innocent.
We have more than enough gun laws on the books. If everyone of them was being followed and you wanted to have more then maybe I would listen but they aren't being followed.
If when the judge sentenced CHO to outpatient consulting he was supposed to notify the VA State Police and did not do that then hold him accountable. If HIPPA is a bad law then fix that law but don't pass another law.
WE HAVE ENOUGH LAWS ON THE BOOKS
If it is not in the US Constitution then the Federal Government should not be doing it.
"Carrying a gun is a social responsibility."
April 26th, 2007 01:46 AM
There might be a movement to ban every kid who took retalin because of ADHD from ever owning a gun. I am not sure that is not a good idea but I want to show the reductio absurdium of the debate. Some of the drugs they are giving kids may destroy their minds. I believe that all people who do things like Cho are insane. Psychiatrists will disagree. We used to institutionalize these people. That is not possible anymore so many become the homeless you see on the street. We are becoming so tolerant of aberrant behavior that I see problems with this for years to come.
SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM
April 26th, 2007 10:50 AM
As stated, I believe all states already have "mental illness" (like insanity, a legal term) defined. The determination is made by a judge, with the recommendation of a mental health professional. The individual in questions should have an attorney assigned to he or she to aid in the protection of rights and to defend the position of innocence of "mental illness" if the statutory requirements are not met.
My longstanding concern has been a lack of recourse for those who have been previously adjudicated mentally ill, to regain the liberty to excersise their full rights. A convicted felon can appeal to his state governor to have his right's to vote and bear arms "reinstated."
April 26th, 2007 11:09 AM
"I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."
Make no mistake. The anti gunners can and will twist every law against us.
If you say that the government can regulate ANYTHING about guns, you are saying that the 2nd Amendment doesn't really mean what it says.
If you agree to let the government set standards and criteria for owning or carrying a gun, you can't whine when the anti's say that they have the right to ban them.
Besides, the constitution does not give me the right to carry a gun. Self defense is a God given right. Gun control is merely a way of saying, "yeah, you got the right to defend yourself but we deny you the means".
Let's see. . . how does it go? . . . "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
fortiter in re, suaviter in modo (resolutely in action, gently in manner).
April 26th, 2007 12:06 PM
Agreed the 2a of the constitution observes the god given rights. It does not give a right.
April 26th, 2007 12:45 PM
If the above quote from the article is correct, what is proposed here is not really a change in the law, but rather a carrot and stick for the individual states to update the mental health database in a timely fashion. I get the feeling that the states have not been reporting their individual mental health records and data to the Feds, so that the NICS database is incomplete and out of date. Although there was some record of the VT shooter's mental "adjudication" somewhere in a Virginia state record, it didn't get reported to the Feds. So Cho was able to buy his handguns without being blocked by a NICS check.
"Under the bill, states would be given money to help them supply the federal government with information on mental-illness adjudications and other run-ins with the law that are supposed to disqualify individuals from firearms purchases. For the first time, states would face penalties for not keeping the National Instant Criminal Background Check System current."
April 26th, 2007 02:24 PM
Of course the great government answer to the situation is to throw some more money around and not really accomplish anything (Will Rogers was right, I am thankful I don't get all the government I pay for). This isn't going to stop any amount of crimes worth even recording. It's going to do nothing but waste more American taxpayer dollars, while opening up another avenue that our rights can be restricted.
This is a bad idea.
...He suggested that "every American citizen" should own a rifle and train with it on firing ranges "at every courthouse." -Chesty Puller
April 26th, 2007 03:42 PM
April 26th, 2007 06:14 PM
I think a good dividing line would be only denying rights to people who have been involuntarily committed. I can't imagine anyone (at least on this site) wanting to deny 2A rights to anyone who merely voluntarily sought out psychological help. Lots of people need to talk to a counselor at some point in their life to deal with various issues, and I'd think that most people have some slight aberration in their behavior that would earn them a DSM IV diagnosis. Isn't there a quote about everyone being crazy to a small extent?
Originally Posted by INTJ
April 26th, 2007 06:52 PM
So many sound like they are with the Brady Bunch. Oh just a little common sense gun law doesn't hurt anything. I for one don't want the Government to have any say in the 2nd amendment. People here really trust the Government that much?
What next? Maybe since most guns used in crimes are stolen require all gun owners to have their guns in a safe? NO more giving in on our 2nd amendments rights. If the gun owners are so blind as to what is really going on maybe we don't deserve the 2nd amendment anymore.
I wonder more how so many people could get shot and no one have the guts to charge the guy. I always wondered how the Germans could load up the rail cars so easy. Now I know
Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.
— John F. Kennedy
April 26th, 2007 08:14 PM
Do you trust the government to maintain a police force and justice system, and to incarcerate people convicted of crimes? It sounds to me like you're advocating all-out anarchy, doing away with laws, police, and prisons altogether, and just having everyone fend for themselves.
Originally Posted by lostone1413
By Biomortis in forum General Firearm Discussion
Last Post: December 21st, 2009, 11:57 AM
By Divebum47 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: June 4th, 2009, 05:44 PM
By PapaScout in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
Last Post: November 6th, 2006, 10:26 AM
By P95Carry in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: May 23rd, 2006, 12:20 AM
Search tags for this page
adhd and gun ownership
john dingell gun control
Click on a term to search for related topics.
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors