Here we go again. More circumventing the 2nd by the Admin

**Sigh** Firearm dealers already have to report theft and missing firearms. a reply to: intrepid

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: SubTruth

originally posted by: MoreBeer
And the bootlickers will be along to praise King Obama for taking their rights simply because he is a progressive and doing "whats right".

Progressives value idealism over reality and this is why they float in the air like a paper bag. It is also the reason many progressives are young and or sketchy older people. Young people have not lived long enough to gain the wisdom that only comes with age and the older people make the same mistakes over and over again.

Really? Do a Google image search of "Sandy Hook funerals" and tell me if that isn't reality.

If you have to use tragedies like this to make your point or win an argument your argument is weak. I welcome debate about the issue but using people and tragedies is sad and wrong.

originally posted by: macman
**Sigh** Firearm dealers already have to report theft and missing firearms. a reply to: intrepid

Then why are they beaking about it?

Licenses will not be issued to any person:

Who has been hospitalized as an inpatient in any mental hospital or alcohol or drug treatment center within five years of the date of his or her application.

Source

That is the law in my state, so this particular cat is already out of the bag. And since demonizing the mentally ill is pretty much socially acceptable and media practice these days, it will only get worse.

How much of a stretch from "having been an inpatient" is it to "A person taking medication for psychiatric issues"? Not much of one. Then the United States of Prozac is screwed. Doctors throw these meds at anyone these days and just about for anything. Work stressing you out? Take this. Spouse under your skin? Here you go. Kids got you ready to snap? I'll write up a script...

The absolutely hilarious irony in it all is that ALL they are accomplishing is guaranteeing more random acts of violence by all this crap - as people with anger issues will simply refuse to own up to them. A person who might once have gone to his doctor, gone through therapy, and come out better will now just bottle it up and let it simmer... All to make sure he can own a gun that, over time, starts to become more and more appealing to him as a way to vent all of that inner turmoil.

It's brilliant really, if you look at it from a "How could we take away guns from a HUGE chunk of Americans while getting the rest of the population to support us?"

Once that precedent is set? The only question is who to demonize next.

a reply to: macman

There is nothing, not a damn single thing anywhere about providing an ID for a firearm.

The right to vote is a constitutional 'right'.

The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional 'right'.

Only one of those things does a person have to had ID, and submit to the 4th amendment violation.

There is too much inconsistency in American politics.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Because the roadblocks won't be designed just to make it difficult for the mentally impaired. They'll be designed to keep the law-abiding from ownership too. That's the real goal, and you know it. If the rules were only going to be there to stop bad people from owning guns, fine.

But after six years of this administration, do you really and truly trust ANYTHING they tell you? I don't, and I don't trust this either. The intent will not be the effect. The effect will be to keep otherwise normal, sane, law-abiding people from arming themselves which they have every right to do.

Tell me how restrictions on the mentally unstable and violent offenders would restrict the AVERAGE american from owning a gun.

Bonus points if you don't try to paint some Orwellian Nightmare as your excuse.

Saddens me that so many are ready to take the fed at their word before even seeing the details.

I don't trust the politicians to write a law that will be specific and to the point..They will write a vaguely worded law/regulation/executive order that can be interpeted a number of ways... And that is what I would be against.

originally posted by: SubTruth

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: SubTruth

originally posted by: MoreBeer
And the bootlickers will be along to praise King Obama for taking their rights simply because he is a progressive and doing "whats right".

Progressives value idealism over reality and this is why they float in the air like a paper bag. It is also the reason many progressives are young and or sketchy older people. Young people have not lived long enough to gain the wisdom that only comes with age and the older people make the same mistakes over and over again.

Really? Do a Google image search of "Sandy Hook funerals" and tell me if that isn't reality.

If you have to use tragedies like this to make your point or win an argument your argument is weak. I welcome debate about the issue but using people and tragedies is sad and wrong.

Why? It is the outcome of these issues. I know the gun lobby would LOVE for this inconvenient truth to go away but it won't.

Pretty much what I've been saying. Lives don't matter, only guns. Very sad. And know what? I'll let it drop if you guys would just admit it.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Did you think 10 years ago that the Govt would take control over our Health Insurance, thus making costs rise????

It isn't too difficult to follow what is happening. Too bad you either refuse to see it, or a blind.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Did you think 10 years ago that the Govt would take control over our Health Insurance, thus making costs rise????

It isn't too difficult to follow what is happening. Too bad you either refuse to see it, or a blind.

..... AND still have a ton of uninsured people around to boot!

a reply to: macman

And once you clear your name everything, theoretically, would be reversed.

Now, should this guy hypothetical person have their guns taken away, no, but they also should not be able to buy a new one until this particular case was solved.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: macman[...]
I'm not even from your country, nor a gun owner and even I can see the relentless and ongoing blatant push to disarm America whilst at the same time Militarizing and equipping the domestic police force to the teeth.

It's almost as if a great unknown force is pushing the US citizenship to the brink of a civil war between the citizens and the government.
[...]

Lived here my whole life- and until I learned the dirty secret of where money comes from I didn't care about gun laws one way or the other.

You're right- and I've seen it my whole life. They don't want the average person being armed, and they're making headway by teaching kids from the start that "guns are bad, mkay"- those kids grow up and never learn to pay attention to what's going on in front of their faces.

This place is screwed, but the more I look the more I find it's the only place left where I'm allowed, for now, to at least protect myself from the insanity of this world.

Old guy down the street came by to chat the other day- we wound up getting along well. He's downright happy he's 80 and won't be going through the prime of his life in a world that's collapsing in on his head.
Told me what I already knew- I'd do well to get out of the city and out of the way, get some chickens and a little farming equipment.


Any laws to limit who can own a firearm is just the beginning. First they'll make it so the "mentally ill" can't own a firearm, then they'll change the definition of "mentally ill" to include anyone who doesn't waive an american flag out their window during their lemming commute.

Any regulation is too much regulation- and not just for firearms.

Mentally ill and/or violent people are branded in a court of law, usually after an arrest or conviction. Their crimes are listed and a judge will remove such rights to access legally. In modern America there are people of power, normally democrats whom want to completely disarm the people by ANY means possible, even lying. They will go about it slow and easy, little here, there and everywhere...remove enough rights to own, and move onward. Later on, a new law, anyone who ever had a misdemeanor is now forbidden. There are already laws in place for this, at state level, this is just a way to broaden the brush and take a brick at a time....eventually the wall will crumble. No one here wants the Lanzas of the world to have guns...but NO law would have stopped that, if his mom had no guns, he would have killed someone else to get them...but we do not need a new law when we have that already in place...I stand behind the 2nd....

a reply to: Irishhaf

I don't trust the politicians to write a law that will be specific and to the point.

That right there was why the second amendment was written.

As the last check to balance the state's power.

How far have we fallen.

Once the second is gone, so go the rest of the bill of rights.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Do you lose your constitutional rights for having a mental disease? How would you feel if they wanted to limit your freedom of speech because you had issues with depression 20 years ago......Simple logic guys. I wonder how many people fighting for this will change their minds when they are labeled mentally unfit.....LOL.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Did you think 10 years ago that the Govt would take control over our Health Insurance, thus making costs rise????

It isn't too difficult to follow what is happening. Too bad you either refuse to see it, or a blind.

Even before that government took control of firearms.

Their costs went up, ammo went up, millions of people lost their jobs, and have been reduced to dialing 911, and just sit and wait for the government, and the police to come 'save' them.

I see the pattern.

Hope others do too.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

As I said, anyone prescribed certain classes of medication for any reason. Not all drugs for mental issues are used for them. Anyone who has ever expressed certain symptoms to his or her doctor whether they were treated or not. The definition of mental illness could be written to include all kinds of things not really thought of as mental illness.

These regs will open up HIPAA and the government has those records so anything in them ... anything at all ... could count against you.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
Tell me how restrictions on the mentally unstable and violent offenders would restrict the AVERAGE american from owning a gun.

Bonus points if you don't try to paint some Orwellian Nightmare as your excuse.

If you do your due diligence you will find that the vast majority of people diagnosed with mental illness are not dangerous at all. In fact any psychiatrist in the world will tell you, flatly, that when they see a patient they do not try to decide if that person has issues, but which issues they have. IE we all have them on some level.

We now live in a world where a single glass of wine or a beer with dinner could, in most states, get you a DUI. A court, then, is likely to offer a deal to drop or lower the DUI charges if you engage in addiction counseling.

Boom. One drink and you're on the edge of being a monster who cannot own a gun.

Go through a divorce and have the rational and normal emotional reaction to it? Boom. One step from being labeled and put in the box.

It's a very slippery slope and absolutely wrong to put "mentally unstable and violent offenders" in the same sentence. You are doing THEIR job for them. We have all been "mentally unstable" at one point or another. We've all lost our tempers or been depressed over something. THAT is mental instability.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

You really are ignorant.

Please, do us and you a favor. Go and actually review laws created over the last 10 years concerning firearms.

The banning of firearms being imported (US made firearms that is), banning of steel used to make firearms from importation, requirements of NFA items and tax stamps, requirements of states no high cap mag laws.....I can go on and on but why don't you go and actually research this....for your own sake. So you can stop yourself short of sounding like this moron...

The sad thing is that people want to go after emotional hot spots that only minimally contribute to gun violence. If they really want to be serious and reduce gun deaths, why don't they turn their attention to the inner cities and gang violence? The majority of gun violence stems from cities. We should look to solve these problems in the inner cities, but politicians are too afraid to even look there for obvious reasons.