Are you for tighter gun control

Why did Obama win last election and the one before?
Not because more people voted for him. It was the percentage that stayed home and didn't preform there civic duty.
If 75% of Republications would go out and vote we would never see some one like Hillary, Bill or Bamby in the drivers seat.
Stay home and don't do anything its your right. Just be sure to send Hillary your donations for her election.
 
Receiving treatment for a mental condition. The question is on the form, but is somewhat worthless with no way to check. A lot of the mass shootings involved minors that were on some type of mood altering drug as a result of being treated for an adverse mental condition. That form is a waste of time. It usually is only good for information after the incident. What is your answer to people that want more gun control laws? The NRA has stated for years that there are enough laws, just no enforcement of them.
 
I would refer you to 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4) Someone who has been adjudicated mentally defective cannot buy or possess a firearm. Is this current law enforced? I don't know, but I doubt it. Could someone with such a legal judgement against them pass a background check to buy a firearm?

It's expensive and difficult to take someone's rights away, as it should be, especially when they have done nothing wrong and just have a "mental issue".

Here is the document
 
Last edited:
Yeah that is something that has always bothered me... I don't know the numbers but lets think realistically about that for a second.
The consensus is typically that it was a 'good turnout' on voting day if we get something like 25% of the registered voters out to vote.
That's just a bit unsettling to me when I'm going to guess that if we're lucky only about 25% of the general public is actually registered to vote. Not a hard number that I can back up, just a perception. Maybe it's 50% but I seriously doubt it. So for argument's sake lets say that on a good voting day 25% of the 50% of the general public that is registered to vote, shows up at the polls. What if it really is only 25% of the 25%.... talk about the few governing the masses huh?

Ozzieman, I'm ashamed that I've been pronouncing that wrong for the last 7 years or so... I always thought it was obummer!
 
If you are not involved in 2nd Amendment issues because you think your pistol shooting at the range, or trap and skeet, or deer hunting is not on the radar for gun control, you are very much mistaken. The word is 'delusional'.

Let me advise you now, when semi-autos or similar are banned or heavily restricted, when they come after your .22LR target pistol or your Krieghoff 12-bore, your scoped deer rifle, and they will, you will be all alone in your fight. You will wonder where that 5-million member NRA is to help you, and those hundreds of letter writers that came out when the assault weapons ban was proposed, while you sat on your complacent butt and didn't have the foresight to look beyond your personal ego to get the big picture. They will be gone because their rights are gone, and why should they help you fight for your rights, when you didn't lift a finger before?

Divide and conquer is the ancient maxim, don't allow the gun takers to split off pieces of the gun-owning public and destroy them in turn. Get your heads out of the sand.
 
Just imagine for a second what could happen IF the American people actually got off their duffs as a whole and not a marginal few, actually registered to vote, and then actually consistently exercised their right to do so in EVERY election regardless of how small?
The 'fanatical few' who now dictate to all of us would barely even be heard over the masses I'll bet. Certainly not carry any credibility.
I'll also bet that we could just about completely turn our government around if it's not yet too late within a couple of decades.
Of course that's all just wishful thinking because I have all but lost faith in it ever happening, but boy I sure do hope I'm proved wrong.
 
Gunplummer said:
Receiving treatment for a mental condition. The question is on the form, but is somewhat worthless with no way to check. A lot of the mass shootings involved minors that were on some type of mood altering drug as a result of being treated for an adverse mental condition. That form is a waste of time. It usually is only good for information after the incident. What is your answer to people that want more gun control laws? The NRA has stated for years that there are enough laws, just no enforcement of them.
Click to expand...

Millions of people are being treated for "a mental condition" but have no record, are not violent, will never be a danger to anyone else, and would be relatively fine if they didn't have the medication they're prescribed.

Mental health, for the most part, is not based on reasoned, intrinsically harmful psychological characteristics. It's based on labeling anyone on the bottom end of the behavioral bell curve abnormal, and treating them so they can fall into the middle of the bell curve... which pushes other people who were "normal" in the older bell curve into the "abnormal" part of the newer bell curve...

People who have a little bit of difficulty concentrating have ADHD. People who are slightly to somewhat depressed, given how the country has gone to Hell, are drugged so that they feel good about how Hellish the country has become, or can ignore it even when the evidence is right in front of them. Rather than learning how to concentrate or to stay calm in the face of insanity, people choose drugs which mask some of the symptoms but create other problems (usually those new problems are minor, and don't include mass murder, though).

There are people who are genuinely homicidal or suicidal, and people like the Navy Yard shooter who are genuinely schizophrenic. There are people who are low functioning as a result of their problems. Those people do need treatment, ideally not with drugs that are known for occasionally bringing out violent tendencies. Those are a small minority of cases. The identity of future mass shooters who are mental health patients isn't obvious even to mental health professionals; if it were obvious, most of these mass shooters would have been involuntarily committed before they went on their mass shootings.

It's cute when tons of people say "do more about people who are mentally ill", but as far as I can tell, the idea fails because that category is poorly defined and poorly understood.
 
Anyone can be labeled mentally ill.
Most people posting here are considered extremist by others in our population.

Whether or not your are for tighter gun control, you're going to get it eventually. Maybe your children's lives, possibly in ours. Some of us already have.
 
Tougher sentencing is pretty much a lock the barn after the horse got out type of solution.

And limiting yourself to just gun control misses the main problem which is criminal violence, whether with or without guns.

Solve or greatly ameliorate that problem and you don't have to worry about gun control.

As far as "tighter" gun control, it depends. I have no problem with increased information.
The CDC should be allowed to track gun violence not banned from making studies.
In fact I'd like to see a data base of all criminal and defensive uses of guns.
 
Gun control

I believe tighter control should be actual training on how to properly operate a handgun. It should involve more than just understanding the laws. It should live fire based on situational awareness and personal defense.
 
Ricky, If you were around in 1968, and even remotely awake, you would say that things have already changed. We have won a lot of battles, but it's been a tough and expensive fight, and we still haven't gained back all the ground we lost then, overall.
 
Last edited:
Why is this thread even on a gun site is my first thought.
My second thought is there's too many laws already. There's so many they contradict each other.
Third thought, gun laws are there for two reasons.
1) hunting regulations, which some of those laws set by DNR are so vague it seems like a lot could be left up to the officer. Then some laws contradict other laws the state has, especially the constitution of the state. Pretty much a waste of time to bother looking laws up.
2) hardcore gun laws that gun owners fear. An unarmed population against an armed government doesn't have much of a chance. Between the media and the government they have brainwashed people into thinking guns are bad. I thik some politicians believe it they are so brainwashed.

I do believe gun owners make a large part of this nation, I can't think of someone I know that doesn't own a gun, most own several. I think most people don't believe in more laws, especially with the fear of more terrorists. But we have the few and proud radicalists gun law fans that can persuade their ignorant followers. Guns are tools, for some it's for food, some for an investment, others a job, and I think most of us for pure enjoyment. But they are just tools, nothing more. I think the laws on them need removed. The NFA stuff is just mind blowing, sure you're perfectly legal to own it, just give us $200 for taxes and wait several months. I do think in the upcoming years "gun control" will be forgotten in the media if the government gets a decent leader. I'm not going into if he was a good president or not, that's a whole different story, but Lincoln tested out the Henry .44 rimfire at DC. Not saying we need a president like Lincoln but we need one that believes they are just tools. There's been lots of passionate gun owning presidents in the past, even as recent as George Bush, I believe didn't Colt even give him an engraved gun?

And for all of this NRA talk, do they really stop any gun laws getting passed? Do they really take a stand? Or do they just ramble on Facebook? Does your money actually go anywhere useful? I always had my doubts and never joined. But I know the truth now, so they'll never get my money. The NRA is a business, they need income. They get more money than just donations and memberships. They, for a fee, train people to be gun instructors. Many states, mine does, requires you to have a handgun course to conceal carry. Well there's probably hundreds of instructors in this state. Plus the instructors for the instructors. They have to renew their certifications to be a teacher periodically. My state passed a bill that removed permit requirements for conceal carry and the governor vetoed it. The NRA literally had no comment. If they could stood up for our rights at all, that would've been a great time. Not too mention their foolishness in the media. I think the NRA almost makes gun owners look more foolish.
 
Last edited:
I, for One (and for All) am NOT for "tighter Gun Control" that is in the usual-sense.

Guns are NOT the problem.

IF Guns were the problem, this next statement would work...

Ban Knives and "ISIS" can no longer behead people.
 
Guns are not the problem. Agreed. So, to read this thread, there is no problem. I know Bi-polar people. You don't want them to have guns. I went to school with a guy that everyone knew was weird. About twenty years after school he shot his parents and was found wandering along an interstate in Virginia.
I listen to guys sit around and bitch about Obama. Hardly any are registered to vote. Most use the excuse: "It does no good because of the electoral college vote". Most do not even understand how that works. You are correct. Guns are not the problem.
 
People in this country need to wake up: we have a group that has declared war upon us and our way of life and our politician in the white house's response, is to take our liberties away in order to defeat them?

Whatever happened to taking the fight to those who wage war against us? To hell with the deflecting argument of gun control. Obama doesn't give a damn about San Bernadino, except to the extent that he may be able to euchre one of his far left promises of gun control because of it. For us to even discuss this topic shows what lemmings we are all becoming.

We have an enemy using weapons against us and our response is to give ours up?
 
Mental heath is a gray area. I don't think anyone can judge where exactly the line needs drawn to where people can't own a gun because of it. Such as depression, some people it affects a little and some a lot. At what point do we say take their guns away? I don't think, rightfully, anyone can decide. Someone mentioned bipolar people, I know people with it. With medicine they are probably better functioning than I am. So who says they don't deserve the right to freedom? And for those yelling most cases involve people with mental health issues, that's like saying they ate cereal for breakfast. Open your eyes everyone, many many people have issues. We can all be like robots or we can all look at our friends and family. Do you think, they talk to a thearopist and are on medicine to control themselves, let's put them up in a psych ward so they can't go on a shooting spree? I hope not. Mental illness issues can be relately minor or very serious. There's a huge gray area in the middle. We only know when the line is drawn is when someone does or tries to do to harm them or someone else. On top of all of this, has anyone watched Changling? It's based on a true story, that woman getting sent to the mental hospital could be anyone of us. What if the police or government says we are nuts and that's all it takes for us to be not allowed for us to owns guns? Putting stricter laws on people with mental health issues is ridiculous. Doing so would be unfair and judgemental. The shooter in SC had Confederate battle flags, and now they are removed from about every where. People blamed those flags for his actions. If we say mentally ill people are the problem then do we remove all of them as well? We'll just have a colony for the mental ill and we'll have a mega city or two for us clean folk. We shouldn't be tarnished with being around imperfect people.


In reality, the world will end in a burning blaze of fire. Not with Obamaterror or ISIS. I find comfort in knowing what will happen, I may not know when but I know what. I don't think I'll live to that day but one day the struggle for goodness on earth will be over and we won't be carrying that burden.
 
Put me down as a proud NRA Life Member who is 100% for tighter gun control.

I want to control my gun better for tighter shot groups.

What reasonable person would be, or argue against that !! :)

Regards,

Rob
 
Last edited:
Ozzieman, 75%? Most of the so called Republicans you are counting are not even registered to vote for either party.
Click to expand...

That is my point. We are in a fight against very powerful people and groups that want to take our freedom and guns away from us. If we don't work together at best we will end up with California laws and I for one will do everything I can to stop this abyss we are heading for.
If you are for or against the NRA I don't think it matters you should be a member. There may be few reasons to join and many more not to join but they are the only big voice that's on our side. Name another group that has done more.
I had some one send me a message that "They" are not going to take away our guns.
Do you really believe that our current president and Hillary C would not take away every gun if they could?
As an individual we can do very little that's true. But as a group of 40+ million American gun owners we can do a lot. Join the NRA.
Or set at home and bitch.
Let’s face it, in a year we could end up with Hillary, and that scares the hell out of me.
“When any nation mistrusts its citizens with guns it is sending a clear message that it no longer trusts its citizens because such a government has evil plans” George Washington.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to nominate every federal politician as a mentally challenged person. If you can't follow simple laws laid out in the Constitution, then clearly there is something mentaly wrong with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top