look I'm not anti gun at all... I believe in the 2nd amendment but it needs common sense.
1) I have no problem with making people register there guns. We register our cars and pets why not guns? If you want a weapon that can kill someone with the simple pull of a trigger that's fine. It's a lot of responsibility and we should know who has them. You can have whatever guns you want..but you need to register it.
2) How the hell isn't it common sense that mentally ill individuals shouldn't have a gun? lol Seriously? I'm fine with it. Make it law today..
Are we going to use your definition of mentally ill? Or whose?
I agree with you in a sense, but who gets to determine who's mentally ill or not?
(ps. I never registered my cat before he passed away...)
Are we going to use your definition of mentally ill? Or whose?
I agree with you in a sense, but who gets to determine who's mentally ill or not?
(ps. I never registered my cat before he passed away...)
Why do people keep asking this? In the US, psychiatrists are licenced after examination through the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) and the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME). Standards (guidelines) are set by the American Psychiatric Association (APA).
look I'm not anti gun at all... I believe in the 2nd amendment but it needs common sense.
1) I have no problem with making people register there guns. We register our cars and pets why not guns? If you want a weapon that can kill someone with the simple pull of a trigger that's fine. It's a lot of responsibility and we should know who has them. You can have whatever guns you want..but you need to register it.
2) How the hell isn't it common sense that mentally ill individuals shouldn't have a gun? lol Seriously? I'm fine with it. Make it law today..
1) All firearms are registered when new or resold through a licensed dealer. Those that are stolen obviously are not nor are those which are sold second hand.
2) Those adjudicated mentally defective or who have been institutionalized are barred from possessing by law.
It's difficult to see how adding new laws would help the situation. Every official from the President on down decides which laws will be enforced. We are in a state of near anarchy already so adding more selectively enforceable laws doesn't seem like a good idea.
Why do people keep asking this? In the US, psychiatrists are licenced after examination through the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) and the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME). Standards (guidelines) are set by the American Psychiatric Association (APA).
But is there a specific definition of "mentally ill" that has been adopted, agreed upon, and used by these boards? Is this definition derived from standardized and repeatable tests with quantifiable scores and scales? If not, they can approve or disapprove anyone for any reason.
But is there a specific definition of "mentally ill" that has been adopted, agreed upon, and used by these boards? Is this definition derived from standardized and repeatable tests with quantifiable scores and scales? If not, they can approve or disapprove anyone for any reason.
And if they don't do as they are told then their license may be jeopardized.
I'm sure a mandatory mental health evaluation will be next.
Originally posted by firstfiero: I believe in the 2nd amendment but it needs common sense.
1) I have no problem with making people register there guns. We register our cars and pets why not guns? If you want a weapon that can kill someone with the simple pull of a trigger that's fine. It's a lot of responsibility and we should know who has them. You can have whatever guns you want..but you need to register it.
Tell me 'o wise one, how is registering a gun gonna' prevent one crime ? How is it gonna' solve one crime ?
Originally posted by Boostdreamer: But is there a specific definition of "mentally ill" that has been adopted, agreed upon, and used by these boards? Is this definition derived from standardized and repeatable tests with quantifiable scores and scales? If not, they can approve or disapprove anyone for any reason.
Try a Google search for "mental competency test". There are several standardized tests, for different situations (ability to stand trial, tests for elderly who may have dementia, etc). So apparently, medical professionals actually do use logic and reason, rather than just making something up off the cuff. Go figure!
What's with all this paranoia regarding mental illness, anyway?
quote
Originally posted by spark1:
It's already illegal to purchase a weapon if you have mental problems (or use marijuana). Just check the Federal Firearms Transfer form.
Maybe somebody should clue in Mr Boehner. You'd think he'd do some research before making a public statement... so he can know what he's talking about.
[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 04-06-2014).]
Try a Google search for "mental competency test". There are several standardized tests, for different situations (ability to stand trial, tests for elderly who may have dementia, etc). So apparently, medical professionals actually do use logic and reason, rather than just making something up off the cuff. Go figure!
What's with all this paranoia regarding mental illness, anyway?
Of all the ones you found, do any of them NOT end with a doctor's "professional opinion" as to how to interpret the tests?
The irony there is "committed to a mental institution" doesn't necessarily mean you have a mental illness. People can be committed for "evaluation" and after a period of time (3 days to 3 months, depending on the court order) if you're found to be mentally competent, you're released.
Say your psycho-hose beast ex- wants to get revenge and makes up crazy stories about you. The police believe it, and have you committed (no crime has been committed, but you might snap and hurt someone, or yourself - it's for your own safety). After 3 days, the doctors say the g/f was full of it, you're fine and send you home. Congratulations, you are now forbidden from buying a gun.
I agree to some extent. IF a person has a DIAGNOSED mental problem that makes him harmful to anyone including himself, it should disqualify him from owning a gun. If a guys just kookoo and thinks hes a butterfly, no problem. If its a nutjob who has paranoia that voices are talking to him about killing something...thats a totally different issue. I also think using some prescription drugs should disqualify you too...those that alter your thinking and common sense.
Originally posted by firstfiero: ... look I'm not anti gun at all... I believe in the 2nd amendment but it needs common sense.
1) I have no problem with making people register there guns. We register our cars and pets why not guns? If you want a weapon that can kill someone with the simple pull of a trigger that's fine. It's a lot of responsibility and we should know who has them. You can have whatever guns you want..but you need to register it.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Tell me 'o wise one, how is registering a gun gonna' prevent one crime ? How is it gonna' solve one crime ?
Cicketts chirping ?
quote
Originally posted by firstfiero: ... look I'm not anti gun at all... I believe in the 2nd amendment but it needs common sense.
1) I have no problem with making people register there guns. We register our cars and pets why not guns? If you want a weapon that can kill someone with the simple pull of a trigger that's fine. It's a lot of responsibility and we should know who has them. You can have whatever guns you want..but you need to register it.
quote
Originally posted by newf:
How 'bout you newf ? Of what benefit is registering a gun ?
The ONLY thing registering guns does is let the police/government know who has them...if they report it. Im pretty sure unregistered guns outnumber registered ones by a large amount
Originally posted by cliffw: Of what benefit is registering a gun ?
Anybody ? I am getting tired of "the answer is to register guns". How is that the answer ? Of what benefit is it ? EDIT I saw you post Roger. Not the answer I was looking for, .
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 04-07-2014).]
Anybody ? I am getting tired of "the answer is to register guns". How is that the answer ? Of what benefit is it ? EDIT I saw you post Roger. Not the answer I was looking for, .
I agree with Roger about registering guns, its like that MM law that makes you register as a medical marijuana user, all it does is tell the government who is doing what so they can line us all up and put us in jail when they change a law. That they do every dam day now don't they. Wait till the boogie woogie boy goes and watch how long it takes them to start changing the laws and start confiscating people homes.
I know I am paranoid, but that doesn't mean people aren't out to get me ether now does it.
Steve
[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 04-07-2014).]
Originally posted by Formula88: Say your psycho-hose beast ex- wants to get revenge and makes up crazy stories about you. After 3 days, the doctors say . . .
See, I worry about that because she is now HIS g/f. But, eventually, he will have the problem . . .
The ONLY thing registering guns does is let the police/government know who has them...if they report it. Im pretty sure unregistered guns outnumber registered ones by a large amount
And most crimes are committed with stolen guns anyway. I'd like to see how many gun crimes were committed by the registered owner.
Originally posted by tebailey: And most crimes are committed with stolen guns anyway. I'd like to see how many gun crimes were committed by the registered owner.
Say they all were committed by registered guns. Registering them did not help. How would registering them help solve the crimes ?
Although it's denied by gun opponents because they know it's toxic to their cause, the reason for registration is simply the first step for confiscation. Their thought process is to remove all guns from the public so that criminals will no longer have a supply of guns to steal. It's really as simple as that. They are of the mindset that the government will protect you so you no longer need a gun. You do not need to hunt either, plenty of food at the supermarket. Such short sightedness is laughable except the knot-heads won't stop trying to ignore the 2nd amendment. I expect their next move will be to somehow change the 2nd amendment.
Originally posted by firstfiero: look I'm not anti gun at all... I believe in the 2nd amendment but it needs common sense.
1) I have no problem with making people register there guns. We register our cars and pets why not guns? If you want a weapon that can kill someone with the simple pull of a trigger that's fine. It's a lot of responsibility and we should know who has them. You can have whatever guns you want..but you need to register it.
2) How the hell isn't it common sense that mentally ill individuals shouldn't have a gun? lol Seriously? I'm fine with it. Make it law today..
Driving is a privilege. Bearing arms is a right. Two completely different things. Please go back to school and learn the difference and why the founders of this great nation thought it important to add a bill of rights to the Constitution.
I don't think anyone with common sense, including myself, disagrees with the notion of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill. But the problem we have today is this rush by the radical left to redefine many things and rewrite the dictionary to suit their own views. If left to their own devices on this subject, I'm sure they would redefine mental illness so it would include entire segments of the population based on race, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, and political views just so they could disarm and, ultimately, incarcerate people who didn't agree with them. Let's not forget this sort of thing happened in the past and millions were murdered as a result.
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence …" -George Washington
[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 04-08-2014).]
The left has no problem with any sexual orientation, Darth, no matter how sick. Otherwise, they are happy to assert any other thought outside their definition or position as mental illness.
The ONLY thing registering guns does is let the police/government know who has them...if they report it. Im pretty sure unregistered guns outnumber registered ones by a large amount
The probably still do in this country too Roger. In fact I am almost certain of it. But for some reason the number of dickheads who own guns in the uSA outnumber the rest of the world. What to do about that faction, who knows?
The probably still do in this country too Roger. In fact I am almost certain of it. But for some reason the number of dickheads who own guns in the uSA outnumber the rest of the world. What to do about that faction, who knows?
Does dickhead equal American gun owner or are you referring to a portion of American gun owners who just happen to be dickheads?
Does dickhead equal American gun owner or are you referring to a portion of American gun owners who just happen to be dickheads?
AusFiero is another brainwashed lemming who is probably just jealous of us AMERICANS because we have balls and stand up for our rights - and refuse to allow the elite class the ability to take those rights away from us (like they did down there in Australia).
But you know what? I bet that elite governing class there in Australia still has their armed guards to protect them. Meanwhile, they could give a rat's ass about the peasants.
[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 04-08-2014).]
Yep, a blanket "mental illness" will solve the problems. There a varying degrees of PTSD and a host of side issues that go along with it. Let's bar all the vets that suffer with a form of PTSD from owning guns. How many vets do you think are masking PTSD issues right now so they can keep their rights and keep from being labelled mentally ill? How do we measure the severity of PTSD? I know I can get 30% disability right now from the VA for PTSD. Have I thought seriously of suicide in the past 8 years? No. Have I gone out wielding my guns recklessly? No. Outside of my weapons qualifications the last 5 years of my carreer, I have handled my shotgun about 12 times to for trap and skeet shooting. I've handled my pistols maybe 6 times. 5 of them at the range and once at 2:30am when some dirtball punk was "casing" the side of my house and my son in the basement saw him out the window and texted me about it.
Yes, isn't that a great idea coming from the very guy who was in charge of the gun-walking operation that put firearms right into the hands of criminal aliens - some of which used them to murder border patrol agent Brian Terry...
Holder still hasn't apologized to Brian Terry's family for his role in the gun running operation that led to one of those guns being used to assassinate Terry.
Gotta love the elite ruling class. One set of rules for them, and another set for everyone else.
Originally posted by Boostdreamer: So now they want gun owners to wear bracelet tracking devices! This is freedom?
The bracelets are supposed to work by communicating to the gun that a recognized/approved fingerprint is on the gun. Which means guns and bracelets have to communicate with each other. . WTF, wtf:, how can you loan a gun, share a gun, use a fallen comrades gun ... in the enjoyment of our Second Amendment ?
quote
Boostdreamer's linky of Eric Holder "It's those kinds of things that I think we want to try to explore so that we can make sure that people have the ability to enjoy their Second Amendment rights, ...
There is no greater enjoyment than shooting overstepping government. Fighting for freedom, self preservation. More stupidity from Eric Holder, same linky ...
quote
General Eric Holder said gun tracking bracelets are something the Justice Department (DOJ) wants to "explore" as part of its gun control efforts.
The US Department of Justice is not a control department of any kind. It is supposed to enforce laws. I am sick and tired of all the executive department's regulations which have the same effect as law. As it is now, any regulation can be voted null/void by Congress. I say any and every regulation should be approved by Congress.
WTF, wtf:, how can you loan a gun, share a gun, use a fallen comrades gun ... in the enjoyment of our Second Amendment ?
Easy, take the owner's bracelet. If a biometric fingerprint is required to activate it, cut off the owner's arm, hand, or finger. How hard was it to figure that out?
People with criminal intent are always going to find ways of working around new laws and procedures. The criminals don't care if what they are doing is illegal. Isn't that the point of being a criminal? The elite ruling class doesn't get that because they don't care what the criminals do. They only want to control the law-abiding populous, especially those who don't vote a certain way. Why do you think there is this big push to give voting rights back to convicted felons and illegal aliens? The goal here is to dilute the voting pool so much the honest American citizen's vote doesn't matter as much.
I also think part of the reason why this administration is letting Colorado and Washington get away with legalizing pot is so they have something to hold over the heads of those citizens and states later on when they need the leverage. Notice how there isn't any written legislation on the books at the federal level to decriminalize pot. Instead, they've just verbally said they would choose not to enforce those laws right now. But you can bet your asses when those in power are ready to call in those favors, they will threaten to reinstitute enforcement of the current federal ban on pot if those citizens or states don't kneel and comply. But hey, if you are dumb enough to do drugs in the first place I guess you're going to get what's coming to you.
In the meantime, I wish to keep my 2nd Amendment right to bare arms AND DEFEND MYSELF against the drug crazed masses, including those who currently hold seats in government.
Gun registration seems to have increased gun crimes ,,not one crime was prevented by registration,maybe slowed down at best.. criminals have guns .they get guns easily & cheaply ..
95% of mass gun murders are done by Atheist democrats ,, the bigger the slaughter, the more vocal the atheist of course a very high percenatge of democrats are mentally ill ,full of vicious hate or deranged the media convinced me Tim Mc veigh was a christians ,,he was just a normal typical atheist
Yes, isn't that a great idea coming from the very guy who was in charge of the gun-walking operation that put firearms right into the hands of criminal aliens - some of which used them to murder border patrol agent Brian Terry...
Holder still hasn't apologized to Brian Terry's family for his role in the gun running operation that led to one of those guns being used to assassinate Terry.
Gotta love the elite ruling class. One set of rules for them, and another set for everyone else.
If there was justice, Holder would be hanging from a tree next to Obama for his treasonous behavior. The audacity of him and Obama know no bounds.
Originally posted by Blacktree: What's with all this paranoia regarding mental illness, anyway?
Because of what I posted earlier. If the deciding factor is wether you have ever been prescribed medication used to treat depresion, then someone like me would have their right taken away when they are not mentally ill. I am prescribed Pamelor, 20mg per day. That is a depression medication. It is not prescribed to me to treat depression, which I do not suffer from. It is prescribed to me for one of it's other effects, that being boosting the effectiveness of NSAIDs (Non Steroidal Anti Inflamnatories, like Ibuprofen for example). But if the litmus test is just "being prescribed a medication used to treat depression", well there goes my right. Heck, Tramadol a commonly prescribed moderate pain killer is also used to treat depression because it boosts serotonin production. Yet another medication I am prescribed to treat my arthritis.
Basically, many of us would not have a problem with preventing mentally unstable people from owning firearms, the problem comes of where to draw that line. Some of the ideas being tossed about such as the one I mentioned above are just ludacris. You know what? Yeah, okay, sure, many of these people who have done mass shootings have been prescribed antidepression medication at some point if not currently. But MILLIONS of people have been prescribed them and the number of them that commit such a violent act wouldn't even register in a whole number percent in comparison. Why is it right to take away the right of all for what .00821% have done? (Just a random number, no it's not sourced it's just being used to demonstrate the asinine nature of such an idea to define who is mentally ill. In reality the number would probably actually be smaller.)
I have no problem with preventing mentally ill people from owning weapons so long as that mentally ill label is used for people with mental illnesses that exhibit a STRONG association with violence. Simple depression? No.
[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 04-10-2014).]
If there was justice, Holder would be hanging from a tree next to Obama for his treasonous behavior. The audacity of him and Obama know no bounds.
Perhaps broadcast live on every channel? Now, that would be a Public Service Announcement worth watching, especially if Harry Reid was on the third gallows. After a fair and speedy trial by his peers, as guaranteed by the Constitution, of course.
.
.
