Here we go again. More circumventing the 2nd by the Admin

a reply to: macman

You never see them coming up with plans to take guns away from gangs, why is that?

Yeah you guys better hope none of this stuff passes.... imagine having to take a mental health and wellness test just to buy a gun! What would your sanity score be if they asked you stupid questions like....

Do you spank your kids?
Do you question authority?
Do you play video games?

This would open up a lot of back-door policies

a reply to: joemoe

No, you would not have you rights taken away without your day in court.

If a vengeful ex accuses you of something, yes you may get arrested, you may get investigated, but assuming you didn't do anything, odds are you will be cleared. That's how these things work.

Keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill and dangerous people is a very good thing. But we should have a very clear definition of what both of those terms mean.

Is Bi polar mentally ill? Is depression mentally ill? If I was arrested for assault as a 17 year old when I try to buy a gun as a 27 year old with no instances since I was 17 am I still violent? These types of questions need to be answered and there needs to be a very clear "if this, then that" but seriously, how is anyone against making it difficult for mentally ill and violent people to get weapons?

That argument just doesn't make sense.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun But do you really think these power hungry progressives will play this the way it "seems"? All through history, tactics have been to appeal to reasoning, have it make good sense, it is for good, and then twist and bend till it fits their mold. State judges can prevent you from legally owning firearms, and that is as far as it should go. Anyone can be classified as "ill" on any document generated by government. trust these elected wanna be socialist dictators will get you no where....

a reply to: thishereguy

People in gangs would be, theoretically, people with a violent history. So yes, they are against them getting guns through legal channels.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: introvert

Do you back a law that requires an ID card to vote?

No, I do not for a variety of reasons, but I already see what you're trying to do. The two, voting and gun ownership, are not even in the same ballpark. A vote cannot directly cause harm or death, nor is voter fraud even statistically significant enough to even consider burdening the system with more requirements. That would be like reinventing the wheel when there is no need to do so.

On the other hand, a gun can, obviously, kill someone in the hands of a person that doesn't need to have one, is mentally ill or has a history of violence.

While I would invite all people, mentally ill and wife-beaters alike, to vote on election day, I do not want mentally ill people or violent people to have firearms.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: introvert

Do you back a law that requires an ID card to vote?

Just wondering, since federal law states that convicted felons are no longer eligible to vote.
I wonder what would happen if someone tried to pass a law requiring background checks before you vote... EVERY TIME THAT YOU VOTE.

a psychopath that votes, is a lot more dangerous than a psychopath who owns a gun, right?

a reply to: introvert

Define mental health please. Are they simply going to look for a record of having been prescribed certain drugs? If so, I'd be labeled as mentally ill even though I'm actually not. I took anti-depressants for migraine control as a trial to see if they'd work, and they didn't.

This is quite funny. Every time a mass shooting happens the gun supports say, "IT'S NOT THE GUNS. IT'S THE CRIMINALS AND MENTALLY ILL!!!!!" OK, now they are doing something about that and now it, "WHOA. WE DIDN'T MEAN IT." Which leads me to only one conclusion. Gun advocates don't want ANY change and if you happen to die in a mass shooting.... oh well.

Secondly, are they actually supporting crime?

Aside from these issues, some gun rights advocates have also raised concerns about upcoming ATF rules that would require gun dealers to report gun thefts...

Are you kidding me?

a reply to: ketsuko

Mental illness would have to be defined during this whole process. Same goes for someone with a history of violence.

Introvert up there could define it how they want, but that's not what matters. We need to be asking the law makers what those terms will mean.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: introvert

Define mental health please. Are they simply going to look for a record of having been prescribed certain drugs? If so, I'd be labeled as mentally ill even though I'm actually not. I took anti-depressants for migraine control as a trial to see if they'd work, and they didn't.

I am not qualified to define what mental health is. Of course we would have to see how the regulations are drafted and decide if they are too ambiguous or too encompassing for our liking.

All I am saying is that I support keeping mentally ill and violent people away from firearms. My continued support will depend on the details within the order.

a reply to: intrepid

The devil is in the details.

Going from the quote alone, it looks silly, but what are the requirements? They didn't include them, so we can't say whether the objections are silly or not.

I'll remind you that the way Obamacare was reported on, people thought those of us with objections were silly too.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: introvert

Do you back a law that requires an ID card to vote?

Just wondering, since federal law states that convicted felons are no longer eligible to vote.
I wonder what would happen if someone tried to pass a law requiring background checks before you vote... EVERY TIME THAT YOU VOTE.

a psychopath that votes, is a lot more dangerous than a psychopath who owns a gun, right?

I'll ask you jimmy... yes or no... Do you back background checks for every voter before they vote each time?

Who gets to decide whose mentally ill?

By what qualifications?

I remember not too long ago a laundry list of things by the gov that were considered "extremist" and it was pretty much everyone that drew breath....

The issue with things like this is you have to look at whose going to be making these determinations....

And I dont trust a damn person in the gov to do it

a reply to: intrepid

Exactly. Any responsible gun owner and 2nd amendment advocate should welcome this sort of discussion.

On the other hand, could the opposition to this be more rooted in anti-Obama rhetoric? If this was proposed by a Republican president, would the NRA and the rest praise him for "common sense" steps to curb violence?

I think that would be the case.

a reply to: intrepid

What you just pointed out really bugs me whenever this issue comes up. There is obviously a problem with letting a certain minority of people own guns. We as a nation will never let our guns be taken away which is 100% the right way for us to be. But we cannot continue to let people who should not have guns easily get them. We cannot let the system allow this to happen, it is flawed. That much is obvious.

I understand where we need to watch extremely carefully how they word these laws and regulations, how they implement them, but we should not be against them completely. That will lead to other events like Sandy Hook, like Aurora, like Columbine. Some of these events would still have happened, I'm aware of that, but so many more could have been prevented if we, as a nation, were not insanely afraid of regulations.

originally posted by: MoreBeer
And the bootlickers will be along to praise King Obama for taking their rights simply because he is a progressive and doing "whats right".

Progressives value idealism over reality and this is why they float in the air like a paper bag. It is also the reason many progressives are young and or sketchy older people. Young people have not lived long enough to gain the wisdom that only comes with age and the older people make the same mistakes over and over again.

originally posted by: SubTruth

originally posted by: MoreBeer
And the bootlickers will be along to praise King Obama for taking their rights simply because he is a progressive and doing "whats right".

Progressives value idealism over reality and this is why they float in the air like a paper bag. It is also the reason many progressives are young and or sketchy older people. Young people have not lived long enough to gain the wisdom that only comes with age and the older people make the same mistakes over and over again.

Really? Do a Google image search of "Sandy Hook funerals" and tell me if that isn't reality.

originally posted by: thenewguy1987
a reply to: thishereguy

People in gangs would be, theoretically, people with a violent history. So yes, they are against them getting guns through legal channels.

Well, apparently I am stupid not to realize that a gang member has a violent history and you misunderstood the question, so I'm out. Good day.

a reply to: SubTruth

If you earnestly believe only the young and stupid are "progressives" then you're part of the problem in the United States. This whole "Us vs. Them" mentality has got you by the dangly bits and you're buying it hook line and sinker. Broaden your thinking. Not everyone on the left is stupid and young, just as not everyone on the right is old, white, or christian. Abandon your stereotypes and you might might see some validity in the arugments rather than thinking "The progressives want it, so it must be awful" crap.