All those “Single Ladies” out there like Octomom and Kate should think it over before raising boys alone or would be sexist? Let’s just get rid of the second amendment instead and continue taking men out of the picture. That seems to be working great.
SINGLE MOM CONTROL NOT GUN CONTROL. MENTAL HEALTH CONTROL NOT GUN CONTROL.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Are gun owners against mental health screenings and safety courses? I own several guns and may get an ar15 in the next week or so in case of a ban fyi. I do think a safety course and mental health screening is a reasonable compromise going forward. It could be an elective for high school seniors so parents that don’t want their kids involved with guns at all (stupid in my opinion, but their right as parents) can stop their kids from being in the course. It could also be taught like drivers ed.
Hows that?[/quote]
Because slippery slope fallacy
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
You screen for known mental illnesses and take a drug test. Our gov isn’t perfect, but I think the majority of people would pass just fine. If you fail you get treatment and if your treatment works your good to go. Is that not reasonable?[/quote]
Many states already have laws in place and a permit process and background check. And you want to bring the federal government in on it? My gosh from health care to gun ownership. We can’t make a move without big daddy involved.
Look, I know your heart is in the right place on the issue. But I could not disagree more.[/quote]
I never said fed involved. You jumped to that conclusion.
Edit: I suppose my post isn’t that clear though.[/quote]
Fair enough, but it comes with an implicit fact that some central authority would have to regulate such “organized” screening process.
If it is just regular people doing their own screening (i.e. practicing discrimination against lunatics and the like) then we already have that in our own capacity and we need no more intervention on anyones else’s behalf.[/quote]
The problem is people with mental health issues aren’t getting help on their own, no one is pushing them to get help, and they are buying gins/using them on others. They are infringing on your and my right to life. So do we allow them to infringe on our right to life or do we infringe on their and possibly our right to bear arms? It’s not an easy question I think. [/quote]
It is an easy question if you don’t needlessly overcomplicate it the way you are.
Here’s what our Constitution has to say about it:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms [u]shall not be infringed.[/u]”
Good posts by JayPierce.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
This shooting is just too perfect for gun-control advocates. Kids killed = maximum emotional response. Stolen legally-owned guns = nobody should have guns because they could be stolen and used for mass killing. Mother was concerned about financial and societal collapse = prepper conspiracy nuts’ kids go postal.
.223, .223, .223, .223 even though the AR-15 was found in the trunk of the vehicle. Shooter was wearing a mask and was not witnessed shooting himself. Multiple shooters reported initially by eyewitnesses, but only one in the official report.
Shooter had a nervous medical condition that inhibited pain response. Same medical condition also adversely affects motor function, yet he was able to fire a weapon so well that he managed to kill 26/27 (with a pistol!!), and the one injured was probably a ricochet (she was shot in the foot). We have trained/experienced LEO and Mil that couldn’t pull that off and you’re telling me a 20yo nerd did it?
Lanza’s dad and Holmes’ dad are both set to testify in the LIBOR scandal… Holmes’ case looks the same way with the multiple shooters initially reported, wearing the same black tactical getup, apparent mental disorder, etc…
Every bit of this stinks.[/quote]
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Good posts by JayPierce. [/quote]
Horrible thing that went down.
So, it was pistols that killed all the children, and the AR15 was in the trunk of the vehicle…
If we are going to really look at this in an objective way, we have to categorize weapons correctly… Really what we are talking about is getting rid of weapons that are semi automatic, and capable of killing people…
What’s the point in putting a ban on pistols and really any semi automatic rifles that are out there… I say this not because I want to see weapons banned, I’m saying this because it’s the truth… The difference between an AR15 with a tiny 5.56 round vs. any number of semi automatic hunting rifles that are just as if not more lethal, they just don’t look as assuming as the AR15 with it’s semi tactical aesthetics. So, just because a rifle looks a certain way, it will become illegal, and rifle manufacturers can simply adjust and we are back at square 1, just no more high speed looking rifles.
We need to keep heavy weapons out of the hands of civilians, and keep any kind of weapon out of the hands of people with mental disorders…
From the WSJ:
By JARED A. FAVOLE
WASHINGTON?President Barack Obama on Wednesday will tap Vice President Joe Biden to spearhead White House efforts to mold new gun and mental health policies following the Newtown shootings, a choice that could prove crucial to getting changes through Congress.
Aides said that Mr. Obama will make the announcement in the White House briefing room. The aides said the president isn’t expected to announce major policy decisions, but will lay out how the administration will move forward on the issue.
Mr. Biden will be at the briefing Wednesday and could be essential to getting any changes through Congress, as he has decades of experience as a senator and is often Mr. Obama’s go-to person when the president seeks to build support on Capitol Hill.
More
The announcement comes just days after one of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history, with 20 children and six adults gunned down at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. The tragedy has sparked a wide-ranging debate on the country’s gun laws, and even strong gun-rights advocates are calling for change.
The White House said Tuesday that Mr. Obama spoke by phone with one staunch gun-rights supporter, Sen. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.), who said that he and Mr. Obama “agree that as Americans and parents, all of our children belong to all of us?and we must work together to keep our precious children safe.”
Mr. Manchin said he knows “my friends at the NRA [National Rifle Association] and those who support our Second Amendment rights will participate because I know that their hearts are aching for the families in Newtown, just like all Americans.”
It is unclear exactly what policies the administration will pursue. The White House has said it wants to take a comprehensive look at the nation’s gun and mental health laws to determine what are the best ways to prevent mass shootings.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney briefly gave details about measures Mr. Obama would support, saying that the president would consider limits on high-capacity magazines and would back efforts to prevent people from buying guns through unlicensed dealers without a background check. Mr. Carney also said the president “actively” supports Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D., Calif.) proposal to ban assault weapons.
Mr. Obama has been president during several mass shootings and previously called for measures to prevent guns from getting into the hands of the wrong people.
His calls haven’t usually been followed by significant action. But this time could be different, with support for change coming from gun-rights advocates like Mr. Manchin, who has an “A” rating from the NRA and aired a campaign ad in 2010 showing himself firing a rifle.
The NRA this week broke days of silence after Friday’s shooting, saying it wanted to make “meaningful contributions” to prevent future mass shootings. The group, which is one of the most powerful lobbies in the U.S., plans to hold a news conference Friday.
Feinstein announces provisions of AWB bill:
A summary of key provisions in the updated bill:
Stops the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of more than 100 specifically-named firearms as well as certain semiautomatic rifles, handguns and shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
Stops the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
exempting more than 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting and sporting purposes; and
exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
You screen for known mental illnesses and take a drug test. Our gov isn’t perfect, but I think the majority of people would pass just fine. If you fail you get treatment and if your treatment works your good to go. Is that not reasonable?[/quote]
Many states already have laws in place and a permit process and background check. And you want to bring the federal government in on it? My gosh from health care to gun ownership. We can’t make a move without big daddy involved.
Look, I know your heart is in the right place on the issue. But I could not disagree more.[/quote]
I never said fed involved. You jumped to that conclusion.
Edit: I suppose my post isn’t that clear though.[/quote]
Fair enough, but it comes with an implicit fact that some central authority would have to regulate such “organized” screening process.
If it is just regular people doing their own screening (i.e. practicing discrimination against lunatics and the like) then we already have that in our own capacity and we need no more intervention on anyones else’s behalf.[/quote]
The problem is people with mental health issues aren’t getting help on their own, no one is pushing them to get help, and they are buying gins/using them on others. They are infringing on your and my right to life. So do we allow them to infringe on our right to life or do we infringe on their and possibly our right to bear arms? It’s not an easy question I think. [/quote]
It is an easy question if you don’t needlessly overcomplicate it the way you are.
Here’s what our Constitution has to say about it:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms [u]shall not be infringed.[/u]”[/quote]
I get that and I know what the constitution says. We don’t allow felons to own guns, are you okay with that? Also in 17 and 18 hundreds the community would have come together to prevent or at least minimize the damage in this case. Fast forward to 2012 and those kids had to wait for the police to arrive FAR too late. I’m all for open carry, but I know that’s not likely to happen.
It is a complicated issue regardless of the language of the 2nd amendment.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Gun control works. Just ask Stalin, Mussolini, and Hitler.
There are two types of people who would seek to disarm you; those who wish to enslave you, and those who wish to kill you.
There is one type who would see you exercise your right to decide whether to arm yourself or not; that one will fight with you or for you. Your choice.[/quote]
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Gun control works. Just ask Stalin, Mussolini, and Hitler.
There are two types of people who would seek to disarm you; those who wish to enslave you, and those who wish to kill you.
There is one type who would see you exercise your right to decide whether to arm yourself or not; that one will fight with you or for you. Your choice.[/quote]
[/quote]
Excellent poster SteelyD.
But the left will disregard all common sense as Obama has just appointed Joe Biden (of all people) to head up a committee on gun violence.
Here comes the attempt at some sort of infringement on gun ownership you can count on it.
NOt just Biden, but these fine folks will have input
“The policy process Obama was announcing Wednesday was expected to include input from the departments of Justice, Education, and Health and Human Services. The heads of those agencies met with Obama at the White House on Monday.”
Maybe they can get input from Korea and Iran too…
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What if you had a weapon just as effective as a gun minus the killing part. Like point, aim, shoot, boom they are unconscious for an hour or so guaranteed. I’m not saying one exists right now but if there was.[/quote]
Surely there’s some computer game you could be playing instead of trying to engage adults with this drivel?[/quote]
No, seriously, if it would just shoot rainbows, that would be awesome (shooting double rainbows is outlawed in several countries already).
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Removing the need for a driving test would not remove the need for common sense.
In fact it may actually improve the exercise of common sense.
Relying so much on institutions to test us we fail to test ourselves.
[/quote]
These are platitudes. They don’t address the simple fact that there are many people who shouldn’t be driving. We have a collective interest in barring them from doing so. A driver’s test and license issuance are the best shot we’ve got at that.
What exactly is the alternative? I mean in specific terms, not “well we become stronger individuals and test ourselves.”
It’s on issues like this one that small-government advocates stumble over themselves. There are serious problems with the size and arm-length of the United States government. Driver’s tests aint one of em.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What if you had a weapon just as effective as a gun minus the killing part. Like point, aim, shoot, boom they are unconscious for an hour or so guaranteed. I’m not saying one exists right now but if there was.[/quote]
Surely there’s some computer game you could be playing instead of trying to engage adults with this drivel?[/quote]
I only bring it up because some people like to justify guns with self defense. I just want to know when that reason is diminished in the future they still have other arguments.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What if you had a weapon just as effective as a gun minus the killing part. Like point, aim, shoot, boom they are unconscious for an hour or so guaranteed. I’m not saying one exists right now but if there was.[/quote]
Surely there’s some computer game you could be playing instead of trying to engage adults with this drivel?[/quote]
I only bring it up because some people like to justify guns with self defense. I just want to know when that reason is diminished in the future they still have other arguments.[/quote]
Criminals fear dying, not jail.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
More violent crime has been stopped by legal guns than has been committed with illegal guns, yet we’ve been brain-washed into thinking gun ownership is bad.[/quote]
How about the Ft. Hood Jihadi doctor? Ft. Hood is, ironically, a “gun free” zone unless you have an issued weapon.
Sure glad that doctor obeyed the standing orders, or he’d have hurt someone.
Oh, wait. I guess he killed 20 or so soldiers – who didn’t have their guns.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What if you had a weapon just as effective as a gun minus the killing part. Like point, aim, shoot, boom they are unconscious for an hour or so guaranteed. I’m not saying one exists right now but if there was.[/quote]
Surely there’s some computer game you could be playing instead of trying to engage adults with this drivel?[/quote]
I only bring it up because some people like to justify guns with self defense. I just want to know when that reason is diminished in the future they still have other arguments.[/quote]
Why leave a violent thug the possibility of living?