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

yeah right...let's give every mentally ill, psychopath, and sociopath, the right to own guns....it's the 2nd amendment, so every citizen gets to own a gun regardless of mental stability, or low-friggin' IQ....doesn't matter, because there isn't ANY, NONE, NO REASON to DISQUALIFY any American from owning a gun, according to the 2nd amendemnet....does the 2nd amendment say that criminals CAN'T OWN GUNS????....NO...it's clear as a bell, every citizen, nutball, criminal should own a gun.....by the way I think every black person should have a gun, and gang banger latinos, Asian gang members,...2nd amendment is really, really clear....NO EXCEPTIONS.

originally posted by: vor78

originally posted by: Indigo5
Maybe allowing and requiring a dealer to check to see if the buyer has been found mentally ill in a court of law?

That's already a requirement. One of the questions on form 4473 that you fill out when purchasing a firearm asks about this and is a part of the background check that the dealer calls in to the FBI's instant background check system before finalizing the sale.

And let me just note here: I'm not saying that its perfect or that it catches everything. Undoubtedly, it does not.

WOW...You guys don't even know what you are arguing about?????

The Admin is proposing that the law be effective...NOT creating some new law???

And since you are good with it???? RIght??? you should be happy about this???

Presidents can not create new laws...It's called an "Administration" because they administer the law.

The White House said yesterday that the Justice and Health and Human Services Departments were proposing changes in regulations to clarify who under U.S. law is prohibited from possessing a firearm for mental health reasons.

Among the findings in the GAO report: As of October 2011, 17 states and five U.S. territories had submitted fewer than 10 records of individuals prohibited from owning a gun because of mental health issues.

There is a strong public safety need for this information to be accessible to the NICS, and some states are currently under-reporting or not reporting certain information to the NICS at all,”

A Justice Department statement said it’s proposing to make clear that firearm possession would be banned for people found incompetent to stand trial, not guilty by reason of mental disease, guilty but mentally ill or lacking mental responsibility.

JESUS H CHRIST....If you are claiming that "is already a law"...you ARE RIGHT.

What you are all FREAKING OUT about is actually ENFORCING IT.

You Either want that regulation to be enforced or you don't...Choose...

originally posted by: Hefficide

originally posted by: Indigo5


Sooo...Hmm..Legalize rape and murder? Cuz the law doesn't stop those things from happening?

that's your argument?

If that is how you read my post, then we've got larger issues in the world than gun debates. :/

Even though it's bait and an absolute twisting of both words and meaning, I'll still reply because I'm just that nice of a guy. If you can show me where I have, or have ever had a Constitutionally protected and guaranteed right to rape and murder - I'll cave in and agree you have a valid point.

If your intent was to rest your argument on a specific and uncompromising interpretation of the constitution, then perhaps it would have been wise to skip the whole...rape and murder is illegal and it still happens anyway...argument... whilst decrying regulating gun ownership.

I can't take back your post for you nor pretend you were saying something else?

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: vor78

originally posted by: Indigo5
Maybe allowing and requiring a dealer to check to see if the buyer has been found mentally ill in a court of law?

That's already a requirement. One of the questions on form 4473 that you fill out when purchasing a firearm asks about this and is a part of the background check that the dealer calls in to the FBI's instant background check system before finalizing the sale.

And let me just note here: I'm not saying that its perfect or that it catches everything. Undoubtedly, it does not.

WOW...You guys don't even know what you are arguing about?????

The Admin is proposing that the law be effective...NOT creating some new law???

And since you are good with it???? RIght??? you should be happy about this???

Presidents can not create new laws...It's called an "Administration" because they administer the law.

The White House said yesterday that the Justice and Health and Human Services Departments were proposing changes in regulations to clarify who under U.S. law is prohibited from possessing a firearm for mental health reasons.

Among the findings in the GAO report: As of October 2011, 17 states and five U.S. territories had submitted fewer than 10 records of individuals prohibited from owning a gun because of mental health issues.

There is a strong public safety need for this information to be accessible to the NICS, and some states are currently under-reporting or not reporting certain information to the NICS at all,”

A Justice Department statement said it’s proposing to make clear that firearm possession would be banned for people found incompetent to stand trial, not guilty by reason of mental disease, guilty but mentally ill or lacking mental responsibility.

JESUS H CHRIST....If you are claiming that "is already a law"...you ARE RIGHT.

What you are all FREAKING OUT about is actually ENFORCING IT.

You Either want that regulation to be enforced or you don't...Choose...

So, they weren't enforcing it before?

OK, well, can they make it clear to enforce immigration laws as well?

Fat chance of that happening.....

They've been enforcing it BTW. My friend's son is bipolar, and the background check turned him down when he went to buy a gun. PLUS the feds paid him a visit to ask him why he even tried.

It's the old making a mountain out of a molehill. The law is already there, they already do enforce it. It's just another way for the left, and the Administration to trumpet ANYTHING they can about gun control so their base will feel all warm and fuzzy.

a reply to: Indigo5

You're accusing me of freaking out about it? Seriously, dude, you really need to relax.

You're the one who asked the question. I'm not a mind reader. I don't know if you understand that this is already law.

And like I said, the system in place is flawed. Surprise, surprise: I have no issue with tightening up this part of the background check system in a reasonable manner, so maybe you need to go find someone else to flog.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: vor78

originally posted by: Indigo5
Maybe allowing and requiring a dealer to check to see if the buyer has been found mentally ill in a court of law?

That's already a requirement. One of the questions on form 4473 that you fill out when purchasing a firearm asks about this and is a part of the background check that the dealer calls in to the FBI's instant background check system before finalizing the sale.

And let me just note here: I'm not saying that its perfect or that it catches everything. Undoubtedly, it does not.

WOW...You guys don't even know what you are arguing about?????

The Admin is proposing that the law be effective...NOT creating some new law???

And since you are good with it???? RIght??? you should be happy about this???

Presidents can not create new laws...It's called an "Administration" because they administer the law.

The White House said yesterday that the Justice and Health and Human Services Departments were proposing changes in regulations to clarify who under U.S. law is prohibited from possessing a firearm for mental health reasons.

Among the findings in the GAO report: As of October 2011, 17 states and five U.S. territories had submitted fewer than 10 records of individuals prohibited from owning a gun because of mental health issues.

There is a strong public safety need for this information to be accessible to the NICS, and some states are currently under-reporting or not reporting certain information to the NICS at all,”

A Justice Department statement said it’s proposing to make clear that firearm possession would be banned for people found incompetent to stand trial, not guilty by reason of mental disease, guilty but mentally ill or lacking mental responsibility.

JESUS H CHRIST....If you are claiming that "is already a law"...you ARE RIGHT.

What you are all FREAKING OUT about is actually ENFORCING IT.

You Either want that regulation to be enforced or you don't...Choose...

Ok... you bolded one part of the source and ignored the part above it which says:

The White House said yesterday that the Justice and Health and Human Services Departments were proposing changes in regulations to clarify who under U.S. law is prohibited from possessing a firearm for mental health reasons.

But hey, keep capitalizing everything so people will think you know what you're talking about. (just kidding, people don't think that)

originally posted by: jimmyx
yeah right...let's give every mentally ill, psychopath, and sociopath, the right to own guns....it's the 2nd amendment, so every citizen gets to own a gun regardless of mental stability, or low-friggin' IQ....doesn't matter, because there isn't ANY, NONE, NO REASON to DISQUALIFY any American from owning a gun, according to the 2nd amendemnet....does the 2nd amendment say that criminals CAN'T OWN GUNS????....NO...it's clear as a bell, every citizen, nutball, criminal should own a gun.....by the way I think every black person should have a gun, and gang banger latinos, Asian gang members,...2nd amendment is really, really clear....NO EXCEPTIONS.

Your post needs more racism.

originally posted by: jimmyx
yeah right...let's give every mentally ill, psychopath, and sociopath, the right to own guns....it's the 2nd amendment, so every citizen gets to own a gun regardless of mental stability, or low-friggin' IQ....doesn't matter, because there isn't ANY, NONE, NO REASON to DISQUALIFY any American from owning a gun, according to the 2nd amendemnet....does the 2nd amendment say that criminals CAN'T OWN GUNS????....NO...it's clear as a bell, every citizen, nutball, criminal should own a gun.....by the way I think every black person should have a gun, and gang banger latinos, Asian gang members,...2nd amendment is really, really clear....NO EXCEPTIONS.

You are forgetting that the 2nd amendment isn't needed for gangs and criminals and mentally ill people to have guns. They just get guns anyway from other criminals. NO EXCEPTIONS.
They don't care about rights the same as you.

a reply to: howmuch4another
a reply to: macman

And you both bring me to my final point.

Even though you say that the 2nd amendment is set in stone and no one "shall infringe" on our rights as gun owners, it appears the states have set their own standards through other constitutional means such as the 10th amendment that go well beyond the 2nd amendment.

You also claim that the military defines the meaning of "arms".

Therefore, can we not reasonably conclude that the second amendment is not set in stone, and by your own admission is subject to the interpretation and whim of uncontrollable entities such as the individual states and the military?

Can we also conclude that if arms are defined by military actions, meaning what they have done previously, that we can say that anything, leading up to and including an atomic bomb, is protected by the 2nd amendment?

I know that's ridiculous and a leap in logic, but I'm just playing the game by the rules you have set forth.

Both of the examples provided by your posts require one to look outside of the 2nd amendment for definitions and standards. My entire premise has been that we prohibit that, as it can lead to corruption in many forms, and clearly define it with an addition to the 2nd amendment.

Do we honestly believe that these new regulations/tightening of rules (call it what you will), will really stop there?

Since when has govt. ever stopped at a point when first implementing a change. Ever?

At some point they'll change the rules, again... Always do.

Who's going to define mental illness again? Oh, yes, the govt. So forgive me if I'm in no rush to have more govt. interference in my life.

originally posted by: seagull
Do we honestly believe that these new regulations/tightening of rules (call it what you will), will really stop there?

Since when has govt. ever stopped at a point when first implementing a change. Ever?

At some point they'll change the rules, again... Always do.

Who's going to define mental illness again? Oh, yes, the govt. So forgive me if I'm in no rush to have more govt. interference in my life.

"If you like your current healthcare plan, you can keep it."

a reply to: Answer

Exactly.

Yo ?

The 1968 Gun Control Act, took care of the 'nutcases'.

Then the Brady bill of the 90s too care of the 'nutcases' again.

I Guess third times a charm.

(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution

en.wikipedia.org...

Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;

en.wikipedia.org...

Like I said earlier.

We sure can tell who the 'insane' ones are.

As they say insanity is keep doing the same thing over, and over again expecting a 'different' result.

a reply to: Indigo5

I was pointing out the idiocy of thinking that laws will prevent the underlying problems. The cliched saying "Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns" is a very real fact. Making guns illegal will not stop bad people from getting them, using them, or finding a substitute. The argument that eliminating guns will reduce violence is an absolute fallacy.

Again, Sweden has some of the most liberal gun laws in the western world and their crime statistics are staggeringly low. There is no rational correlation between the violence inherent in a society and access to firearms. None.

America has a high violence rate because of a slew of cultural failings. Not because of guns.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: dismanrc
a reply to: introvert


First of all there is not such thing as a military-style assault rifle.

AR-15 stands for Armalite Rifle model 15 not "Assault Rifle" and it uses the same operation presentable as a Mini-14 and most other "automatic" rifles.

Mini-14's are almost ALWAYS exempted from these law because they are "sporting" rifles or "ranch" rifle. In reality they operator in the SAME exact manor as an AR-15. The ONLY difference? The AR is black and scary and has a pistol grip (which,by the way, you can buy on a mini-14.)

Each of them fire ONE shot when the trigger is pulled.
Each has a detachable magazine that holds 5-100 rounds. (Depending on what you want.)

Automatic means that it cycles automatically without having to do anything but pull the trigger and does not mean they are "machine" guns.

This is what we need to get most people to understand.

The technical specifics don't matter. They don't want to hear that. All they care about is "it goes bang and babies die."

Explaining the technical differences will not win them over because they'll just move the goal posts and continue with the "but the children!" type of arguments.

Focusing on the technical differences and trying to get anti-gunners to understand the facts about firearms is a lost cause. You're much better off focusing on victim statistics and other numbers that they try to use in their arguments.

They don't want to see those ether.

The numbers they use are cherry picked and warped. More people die in the US by slipping in the tub then by gunfire. Just say a stat saying Doctors kill 64x more people in the US then guns.

31,940 gun deaths VS 783,936 deaths due to medical system.

www.naturalnews.com...

Have not check these figures, but they look closed to what I have seen before.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Simple answer is that your will have to pro


DAMN can I get one of those super-guns ????

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Do you lose your constitutional rights for having a mental disease? How would you feel if they wanted to limit your freedom of speech because you had issues with depression 20 years ago......Simple logic guys. I wonder how many people fighting for this will change their minds when they are labeled mentally unfit.....LOL.

My freedom of speech doesn't put bullet wounds in children. I can yell at someone until I'm blue in the face but it will never send them to emergency rooms or the morgue.

Ummm not so true. I've seen many cases of "emotional Distress" do to this type of action in the courts the last few years. After all "words hurt" you know.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You don't really study History do you?

Or you'd know that the Weimar Republic, the government that immediately preceded Hitler's Nazi Regime, had stricter gun laws before Hitler came to power.

UMM well kinda of true. Not the whole story though.

After 1919 a very strict gun laws was passed. In 1928 this laws was changed to lighten it. Has to how well it actually worked to remove gun? The Weimar Republic didn't do a lot of kicking in doors to enforce it while the SS and SA under Hitler did.
The 1938 law passed by Hitler did both tighten gun laws and lack them. If you where part of the proscribed group of people you had NO rights to own any weapon (IE Jew to begin with.). If you where a "good" German your rights where relaxed even more.

And just for note I do study history. (Even got the BA of History diploma to prove it. ) And WWII is was my focus in my studies.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

Ok, so how can you logically compare voter fraud to gun crimes in order to makes some point about regulation or laws?

What is your point?

Because you have already stated that you do not back ID for voting.
Why would you support laws being broken when it simply a matter of checking a valid ID before someone votes?

'Oh, no one dies, so it doesn't matter.' That's your retort.
Well guess what, it does matter.

because its only unconstitutional when when its a law THEY dont like........like voter ID laws

Are you ready to have your mind blown?

I agree with Voter ID laws.

AND I agree with measures to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and the mentally unfit.

What am I?

Are you aware of how easy it is to be labelled as both?

I was almost charged with domestic abuse at one point with a physical altercation with my ex wife, had it not been for the in home camera I had, they would have taken her testimony as gospel and i would now have domestic abuse on my record.....

Again.....things are not that cut and dry

So if things aren't so cut and dry, why not have a national discussion about exactly what kinds of mental disorders, what SORTS of domestic violence would preclude someone from having a firearm? Why not start a discussion on how we can keep guns from the hands of the unfit, instead of just saying "Screw it, arm everyone, let it sort itself out"?

Because, this......

That entire comic is a slippery slope fallacy.

For one, the U.S. already some of the most LAX laws on the books for firearms of any 1st world nation, and they will continue to have this for the foreseeable future. Secondly, as I've said in several posts on this very thread, if the government ACTUALLY tried to disarm the U.S. population, there would be an immediate civil war, and 90% of the military would turn on the government in support of it's citizens. You can claim "gradual this" "slippery slope that", but regardless of how many regulations are put in place, the government can't REDUCE the amount of armed people in country unless they go out and start confiscating firearms. When that happens, civil war. Easy as that.

You're free to express your dismay at your perceived attack by the government on your 2nd amendment rights, but truth be told, unless they come for your guns, they aren't infringing on jack.

He is actually correct the whole cake was there before 1934. You could legally own ANYTHING. You could even own a battleship if you could afford it. There where State and local laws, but not Federal.

2nd Amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And yes they did know about more modern weapons then a musket at the time. There where operational machine guns, automatic rifles and revolvers in use during the time of the drafting of the Constitution. So the idea that they where talking about muskets doesn't hold a lot of weight. They where VERY smart men and where very careful in their wording.

The 2AD has been chipped away starting with the 1934 law.

originally posted by: seagull
Do we honestly believe that these new regulations/tightening of rules (call it what you will), will really stop there?

Not really. While I do sympathize with and generally agree with the basic premise that we, as a society, need to do what we can to ensure that criminals and those who are dangerously mentally ill cannot access firearms, I think it also has to be done in a manner that does not infringe on the rights of responsible, law-abiding citizens. Unfortunately, we all know that a significant portion of the 'gun control' crowd, both among the general public and government officials, are not honest brokers in that regard and use such justifications as a means to an end, that being to either seriously curtail or outright ban private firearms for everyone. No, I generally don't trust them to stop here, and that's especially true of the crew in office right now.

For me, that's essentially where the disconnect lies between the fact that, yes, I think its a bad idea to allow certain people to own firearms, but also that many of the proposals that claim to do such a thing take things way too far and affect everyone, which is something that I, as a believer in a strong, robust, meaningful 2nd amendment cannot support.