Does this make me a Liberal?

Obama administration proposes new executive actions on gun background checks

I dont know guys...I am a staunch conservative and a supporter of the 2nd Amendment...but I don't disagree with instituting background checks for gun purchases to prevent the mentally unstable from getting a gun.

The problem I do have is the way the President goes about it. Executive order!

The Obama administration on Friday proposed two new executive actions to make it easier for states to provide mental health information to the national background check system, wading back into the gun control debate after a months-long hiatus.

LINK

So what say you, ATS? Should a process be put in place to ensure that crazies are kept away from guns?

And then, what exactly would be the definition of "Crazy?"

I think THAT is the biggest question -- the definition of mental illness...don't you?

I'd say look at how Obamacare handles mental illness. It could be that just taking or having taken certain drugs could qualify (or disqualify you as the case may be).

Look at me, I have chronic migraine, and I've taken a gamut of different drugs in my quest to find on that controls them. At least one of those meds is also an anti-depressant. Will it matter to the Feds that I wasn't taking it for depression? Will the info even be that detailed? Or will I just get flagged because I was taking an anti-depressant several decades ago and thus denied the chance to own a gun because my medical history says I was "crazy?"

That's the potential problem here.

reply to post by phantomjack


I hate the obsession with labelling things / people......but I don't think you're liberal you are simply supporting common sense.

Without getting into the whole 'gun control' debate you seem to be applying some much needed logical and balanced reasoning and even as an outsider looking in I understand your point about the process Obama is using to implement this.

You're being thoughtful and nuanced. That means you're neither a lib nor a con.

reply to post by phantomjack

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Note: 'All men.' Not just the ones that the current political winds label 'sane'

While part of me is more than happy to strip rights away from the crazies, there is always the danger of 'definition creep' of what a crazy actually is.

It's one thing to tell the guy that has to wear oven mitts to stop him from eating his fingers that he cannot own a firearm, let alone a sharpened stick. But I have the feeling that the label will continuously become more and more broad.

reply to post by phantomjack

And then, what exactly would be the definition of "Crazy?"

If you ask Obama, the dems, progressives, etc they would say repubs, Christians, Tea Party supporters and anyone who doesn't agree with them is "crazy." I'd not be in support any executive move to circumvent congress.

Also would not support anything the goes against the 2nd amendment. If someone is "crazy" and you wish to limit their actions or freedoms the burden of proof is not on the shoulders of the "accused."

ETA - I don't think you're a liberal, true liberals believe in freedom not tyranny.

Look, I don't think anyone is in favor of arming the crazy. That's a given, but defining who or what is crazy is another matter.

There are a lot of people who have very strange definitions of crazy.

And using an executive action to do something this potentially controversial ... well, I suspect that's why he's used an executive action now isn't it?

reply to post by Bassago

If you ask Obama, the dems, progressives, etc they would say repubs, Christians, Tea Party supporters and anyone who doesn't agree with them is "crazy."

absolute rubbish.

InverseLookingGlass
reply to post by Bassago

 

If you ask Obama, the dems, progressives, etc they would say repubs, Christians, Tea Party supporters and anyone who doesn't agree with them is "crazy."

absolute rubbish.

So you're saying I'm crazy?

A simple Google search will prove my point.

So is there anything in these new bills about Fed agents, cops, government workers in general that carry firearms that have used anti-depressants, and how its going to affect them? Or do they get the standard pass cause they are working for the people taking the guns?

reply to post by phantomjack


I don't have a problem with that, neither should gun owners. Most of the mass shootings are done by mentally ill people. I'm sure you will have some gun owners saying what if someone has their mental illness under control using medication, why should they not be allowed to purchase a gun. I would say it would be too much of a risk to allow that. As far as the executive order goes, considering anything related to gun control is such a hot political topic, most legislators don't want to offend gun owners and lose votes, (one reason why representatives should be limited to 1 or 2 terms in office),

The Pentagon is demonstrably crazy.

Can we disarm them now?

reply to post by phantomjack


Well, I'm a veteran, I own an American flag, I believe in the US Constitution.

Didn't Janet Napolitano (via DHS) state that I was nuts?

The real truth is that it is liberal to believe in the right to gun ownership.

All these so called liberals, who are against gun rights, are not liberals. Taking away the ability of the people to fight for their rights is one of the main policies that conservatives pursue.

Not wanting people who have serious mental illnesses to own guns is just good reasoning.

Sadly, there is always room for abuse of these types of laws, and in today's climate, you can count of authorities abusing such policies.

I said this in another thread but it bears repeating. . .

What many fail to realise is that freedom contains risks. The risks are like the other side of a coin.

You can't just eliminate the "risk" side of the coin. Once you do, you eliminate the "freedom" side.

And if you don't agree, then you must hate fluffy bunnies.

reply to post by Sremmos80

So is there anything in these new bills about Fed agents, cops, government workers in general that carry firearms that have used anti-depressants, and how its going to affect them?

Excellent point. If I am not mistaken, a high percentage of people in law enforcement positions suffer from various neurosis.

But in this day and age, expecting the PTB to evenly enforce the rules is foolish.

reply to post by beezzer

What many fail to realise is that freedom contains risks. The risks are like the other side of a coin.

You can't just eliminate the "risk" side of the coin. Once you do, you eliminate the "freedom" side.

That is a pretty good saying. A piece of the truth.

Deaths by car accidents in 2012: 25,580
Deaths by mass shootings in last 7 years: 934 deaths

I could care less if mentally ill people get guns. What is wrong with the tried and true method of denying guns to convicted felons? You know the people who have already demonstrated a tendency to disregard the law? Why penalize someone who hasn't even done anything wrong just because his brain functions differently then most people?

I could care less if mentally ill people get guns. What is wrong with the tried and true method of denying guns to convicted felons? You know the people who have already demonstrated a tendency to disregard the law? Why penalize someone who hasn't even done anything wrong just because his brain functions differently then most people?

reply to post by Krazysh0t


I thought convicted felons were not allowed to own a gun? If it is allowed that is crazy. If I recall, the statistics are high for criminals who are released from prison, usually will go back to the life of crime.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Wouldn't your tendency to follow the law be a function of the brain? So you are denying some one a firearm based on how their brain functions correct? Kind punches a hole in the "tired and true" method there.