Are you for tighter gun control

Receiving treatment for a mental condition.
Click to expand...

4473 specifies "adjudicated mentally ill." That means either a court found you to be mentally ill and/or you were Baker Acted.

And what about a person who has a transitory mental condition and is hospitalized voluntarily for a curable condition such as a "nervous breakdown?" Are they to be denied their 2nd Amendment rights once healed?

Be careful what you wish for.
 
Maybe off topic, but......

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.
Click to expand...
Amen!


A given falls apart, nearly every day.

The world is getting worse, I often hear us say.

Like fools we do not see, it's always been this way.

Twisted, warped, and pained, always it shall stay.

But comfort should be taken, in knowledge that some day.

All will be forgotten, when God throws it away.

Jim

....you're right gunner, He will!
 
My 2 cents.
Gun control has nothing to do with guns.
It’s people control.
It’s all about making people dependent on local and government services.
It’s about the systematic elimination of our freedoms.
Sadly it is working.
To make my point look at the media coverage of the free speech haters on our college campus’s. These spoiled, sheltered young adults want to get ride of or modify portions the 1st amendment.
Our education system is our problem.
This is where our future generations attitudes and mindset is formed.
Teach that guns, free speech, and God are bad what you will get is where we are headed.
Gun control has nothing to do with guns.
If gun control were the real issue our government would be educating the masses on guns; what is a assault weapon, what is the difference between semi auto and auto. The media would be telling the truth about gun violence statistics not twisting the facts to suite the socialistic agenda.
The fact is that most Americans views are based on what the educators and media tell them. Americans for the most part are lazy spoiled brats; to lazy to research and educate themselves.
Gun control is just a illusion used to mask the real objective - people control.
 
Life member of the NRA here. I am a proud supporter of the NRA and proud to be a member! I am not for more gun laws. Guns are not the problem.
 
Anyone can be labeled mentally ill.
Most people posting here are considered extremist by others in our population.
Click to expand...

That is a big worry of mine. It is easy to sell the public on the idea that the mentally ill should not have access to firearms, but then you hear the promoters of "common sense" gun laws say that anyone who owns a firearm must be mentally ill, essentially for disagreeing with them. It is circular logic of the worst sort, and we have to find a way to keep it from catching hold without presenting the appearance of wanting to allow access to firearms by the truly homicidal.

Another worry of mine is the recently popular idea of banning people on the no-fly list from purchasing guns. The problem there, obvious to us but not to everyone, is that there is no process for appealing or contesting assignment to a no-fly list. A free society cannot allow any right to be abridged with no opportunity for challenge.
 
Every time the risk of an Assault Weapons Ban comes up, what happens? The PUBLIC buys thousands more.

The current line of disarmament from liberal papers is to Disarm American Now! with schemes to buy back guns (they never owned in the first place,) or to confiscate them (by force.) And the expected reaction that is already being noted Right Now is that sales are going up, again, with this years Black Friday setting a NICS record, more guns sold in one day than needed to outfit the entire Marine Corps.

If people thought they were in danger of having them taken away - why buy them at all?

BECAUSE THEY INTEND TO DEFY ANY CONFISCATION BY HIDING THEM. Exactly the same reason that 75% of the owners of AR15's in NY State are refusing to abide by the SAFE act.

Talk of a ban or confiscation is just pushing the average American into getting one even sooner than he planned - and he's NOT planning to turn it in, ever.

All the talk about a new AWB or confiscation is having the opposite effect - and resistance is growing with every panic. It's making hundreds of thousands of citizens think and get off the fence. Dragging this out to make their case is only hardening the resolve of those who didn't even see they had a dog in the fight.

Push come to shove, who's got the guns anyway? That's why so many think It's Not Going To Happen. Disarmament will only create open warfare and civil insurrection. Nobody wants that. Therefore all the anti gunners are doing is having a meltdown tantrum discovering they can't get their way after all.

Unless they start throwing things, let the drama queens have their snit.
 
I would like to be for more gun control, if gun control means keeping guns out of the mitts of people who intend to go out and do harm to other people with those firearms (gang bangers, angry people intend harm, terrorists, etc).
However, since the current crop of gun control laws don't seem to be accomplishing this goal and the pre-cognitive ability of the human race seems destined for continued failure, I don't see what sort of bonus this failing policy buys our society.

Like it or not, citizens will 99 times out of 100 be the first responders to acts of violence. Their response might be to run away. If out in public with my kids and I hear a gun shot sort of popping sound or see a guy waving a knife, I intend to grab my children and exit stage closest.
Other citizens might run toward the sounds of violence to help people defend themselves or stifle the threat. No telling how people will respond. If we reach the point of gun control where the second group of people can are no longer be effective in their response, then we've sort of over-controlled the guns, in my opinion.
 
I admittedly do absolutely nothing to fight gun control. I also have never bothered to vote in any election excluding a couple local ones when my friend's mom ran. While I believe that there are good causes, I just refuse to get caught up in politics of any kind. There is just too much one sided thinking involved in politics.

I don't think that I'm being shortsighted. I just have a different opinion of what the future will look like than you. The way I see it the absolute worst case scenario is another assault weapons ban, because confiscation would be way too difficult. While I would not like another assault weapons ban, all it would cause is me to have to reload more often since 99.9% of my involvement in shooting sports is with pistols. Throw in the fact that I already own a couple of AR15's with enough magazines to get by and what I see as a worst case future scenario is at worst an inconvenience to me and not worth me spending my time trying to fight it when I could be doing something that I actually enjoy
Click to expand...


Without voting and knowing the politics involved with those elections, you cannot have a valid opinion of the future, only a fantasy. Like the fantasy that more gun control enacted by the wrong politicians will not have an influence on you and your gun ownership. That and the "FUDD" way of thinking that as long as new legislation doesn't affect you and your guns directly, it isn't worth your time and effort to support other gun owners who are. Voting isn't just a right and a privilege, it's a civic responsibility of all Americans and not just because of gun ownership issues. Don't vote, don't whine when your taxes go up, or your pistols are taken away. Don't whine about our schools or our roads or any other type of infrastructure. Don't whine when you don't have the time or money anymore to do something you actually enjoy.
 
Gun Control I Favor

:rolleyes:

Keep criminals and the mentally disturbed away from guns by keeping them out of civil society. Sounds simple?
 
Is anyone against someone who has been adjudicated mentally ill by a court proceeding being reported?

"Baker Act" has been used to refer to one or two doctors making a decision at the moment based on extremely limited information in order to gain a short, often 72 hour period to observe and make a better informed decision. I'm not sure what state actually has an act called "baker act", but I don't think there is any federal law. I also believe, like castle doctrine and some other laws most of use are more familiar with, there variance state to state. Maybe I am wrong. You can be forcefully committed on a doctors whim for 72 hours the released without any diagnosis or requirement for other treatment. I don't think such an occurrence should automatically bar one from owning a firearm, especially since I don't believe there is normally any sort of appeal process.
 
I was told at a certain location that no one can be committed to a mental facility against their will without due process. I could be wrong, but I had looked into it due to a relative that had become mentally ill, that's the answer I was given.
 
Is anyone against someone who has been adjudicated mentally ill by a court proceeding being reported?
Click to expand...

I doubt it. While there are undoubtedly mistakes made by courts in those proceedings, that's the best and only method to restrict someone's rights while providing due process.

But that's already the law. What the gun banners screaming, "do more to keep mentally ill people from getting guns!" really mean is that they want to remove due process from the equation. Once that's gone, it's simply a matter of categorizing more and more behaviors as mental illness until nobody has guns anymore.

The correct option would be to try to understand mental illness better. Unfortunately, that's a decades-long project and requires funding. It's a hard sell to fund that (regardless of the fact that it would be a drop in the bucket compared to entitlement or defense spending), and nobody wants to wait that long either. They want a cheap and immediate solution. Fast, cheap, good...
 
I would support the following gun control measures:

1.) The creation of a National database of people that have been institutionalized for mental illness or addiction.

2.) National database of persons of interest re terrorism.

3.) Prosecution of straw purchasers.

"Officials said they believe one of the San Bernardino gunmen, Syed Rizwan Farook, asked Marquez to buy the two “assault-style” rifles back in late 2011 or early 2012 so that Farook’s name would not be on file in connection with the high-powered rifles"

I think the above would over time, limit the number of guns to criminals-the mentally challenged & possible terrorists.
 
1.) The creation of a National database of people that have been institutionalized for mental illness or addiction.

So, anyone who checks themselves into rehab for alcolhol addiction or marijuana addiction and have recovered cannot have a gun? I'm not for this. Nor am I for prohibiting everyone who has ever had some level of mental illness. PTSD? We send people off to war and they come back with some level of PTSD and you are prepared to tell them "NO GUN FOR YOU"? No way - I don't like this at all. Are we also going to take people's guns away at the first sign of Alzheimer's? Let's just take everyone's guns away after they reach 40....and not allow anyone to have a gun before they reach 30....

2.) National database of persons of interest re terrorism.

Who's going to be in that Database? What about someone who posted a racist comment? What about someone who hates the president? Says she hates all men? I don't want real terrorists to have guns either; but I certainly don't want our untrustworthy government to have the power to willy-nilly broadly define "terrorist" Do we want little Johnny to have to spend a million dollars to fight DOJ to get his gun rights back because he brought a poptart gun to school when he was 6. How about when we give the government the power to abuse us and when the government does in fact abuse people (i.e. IRS action taken against conservative groups) - we revoke sovereign immunity and let the abused recover punitive damages, attorney's fees, etc. against the government AND the individuals for such abuse. Then, I might consider giving the government a tiny bit more power.
 
But that's already the law.
Click to expand...
It is the law they can't legally own a firearm, but is it reported consistently in every state?
I was told at a certain location that no one can be committed to a mental facility against their will without due process.
Click to expand...
If a doctor believes they pose 'an immediate threat to themselves or others,' a person can be committed against their will short term in most locations. I've personally witnessed people brought to the ER in police custody and turned over to medical custody against their will without any sort of court order. In the limited number of cases I have witnessed the subject was extremely high and out of control or screaming they were going to kill themselves or others. There have been cases not witnessed by me where Doctors have clearly abused this power.
There may well be states where there is no such power, but it is common.

The "list" ideas never work anyways. For all of Skans reasons and many many more. The mistakes with the no fly list are so common TSA workers assume it is a mistake and react accordingly. It isn't like you are taken into custody until they sort out who you are and fix the list. They just say, oh yeah it must be a mistake, better rent a car if you want to get home this year.
 
My suggestions would allow enforcement of existing laws

4. Unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance – This person may not knowingly possess, etc. any firearm or ammunition affecting interstate commerce: § 922 (g)(3), 10 years. 27 C.F.R. 478.11.

5. Adjudicated a mental defective or committed to a mental institution – This person may not knowingly possess etc. any firearm or ammunition affecting interstate commerce: § 922 (g)(4), 10 years. § 478.11.

Re terrorist leanings, if someone is already under the NSA radar, then at the minimum gun purchases should go into their file and perhaps upgrade their threat status.
 
An interesting read though a couple years outdated, I doubt things have changed much unless the changes are for the worse.

https://theintercept.com/2014/07/23/blacklisted/

The task that Homeland Security is faced with is astronomically overwhelming, virtually impossible and certainly not one that I would wish to be charged with. The above article demonstrates how inept the powers that be are at handling such a task. I think that fact is readily apparent regarding the couple responsible for the San Bernardino attack as the facts that the authorities are willing to share with us unfold.
These same powers essentially, would be responsible for any sort of mental health database that may be accumulated. You're darned tootin I would like to keep firearms out of the hands of mentally incompetent individuals, at least as much as the law actually could, but there is no possible way that I could ever support any such endeavor by our federal government. No way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top