View Full Version : What to do
Waywardson174
12-16-2012, 13:31
Given the amount of blame our community rightly places on mental incapacity being to blame, what are we willing to do about it?
A friend's proposal is this: Purchase of a firearm requires production of a certificate of mental capacity. Certificates are obtained by conducting a 1 hour interview with a state-certified psychiatrist. This would require development of interview standards and a slew of other intricacies.
An easier to swallow standard for most of us, but less protective: Determine a list of disorders which legally incapacitate the sufferer from firearm purchase. Incorporate mandatory diagnosis reporting to the ATF (with 6 month intervals of retest, re diagnosis permitted).
I propose this because I don't think we can appropriately say that these are the acts of sick people, but not try to limit the access of those people to firearms. I know Lanza didn't buy the guns, but I feel either of these measures are good faith ground we can give to address what we see as the problem without having to endure what we know are ineffectual restrictions on specific firearm types.
Your thoughts please.
I can't deliver my thoughts on this without swearing at you. I disagree.
TEAMRICO
12-16-2012, 13:34
FUUUUUUCCCKKK NO.
Waywardson174
12-16-2012, 13:48
Im a big boy, I can take it. but don't just swear, give me the substantive underpinnings.
Bailey Guns
12-16-2012, 14:04
You have the nerve to use Thomas Jefferson in your signature line yet you come up with something like this? With "friends" like you who needs enemies on the left? If you can't figure out the negative "substantive underpinnings" to your suggestion on your own, nothing I can say here is going to convince you that this is about the worst idea I've seen re: Constitutional rights and liberties in a long time.
What is wrong with you so-called pro-gun people coming up with more and more ways to infringe on a Constitutional right? I feel like this site has been hacked by the lefty extremists on the DailyKos.
FFS, Scotty! Beam me up the fuck outta here. All intelligent life is gone.
[facepalm][Bang][Bang][facepalm]
All I gotta say....
Bailey Guns
12-16-2012, 14:16
I swear. The fight hasn't even started yet and a few of you guys are already figuring out how give up. Oh, well. Reading some of these suggestions secures in my mind those I don't want anywhere near me in a real battle.
Kraven251
12-16-2012, 14:17
Tag your it, my bad idea was better than this bad idea (and mine was a really bad idea), sorry mate, but you are gonna take a beating on this one.
The problem with these ideas is they don't just take what you come up with, they take it and turn it and twist it and make it look pretty and in the end we are all deemed unfit to own, and then when we bitch it will be said ..."It was your idea in the first place"
Im a big boy, I can take it. but don't just swear, give me the substantive underpinnings.
Let's start with why you have the impression that a one hour chat with someone is going to give an idea if someone is mentally stable or not.
Then we can discuss why you feel it is acceptable to have to pass a mental test to exercise a right.
After that we can talk about where you would set the threshold for what is mentally ill behavior, and what is not, and who will write the test.
Do you have any experience with DUI stuff? They make you take classes, and in the class you have to fill out a very personal questionnaire. One of the questions is, "How often do you cry at sad movies?" The options are Always, Sometimes, Never. If you select never, they accuse you of lying. If you select Sometimes, they diagnose you with depression and recommend an entirely different government class to help you with your "problem". I shudder to think what happens if you said always. This test is administered by someone working the alcohol class, and the results are looked at and grade by a person who has never even spoken with you and only knows what is in your criminal or driving record. Don't you dare cry in frustration when trying to defend against such ludicrous charges, because the response is, "See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. You clearly have a problem."
Your suggestion is offering up a nightmare of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, in the hopes that it will save gun rights. In reality, you'll just lose out on both ends.
Please abandon whatever further ideas you have about this. You are thinking about this incorrectly, and merely suggesting ideas like this is dangerous for the entire nation. Cease and desist.
hghclsswhitetrsh
12-16-2012, 14:26
Op give me your guns since you seems to hate yours.
Bailey Guns
12-16-2012, 14:46
Op give me your guns since you seems to hate yours.
Best answer right there...but Irving's was pretty good, too. I just don't have the patience for such utter nonsense.
Bailey Guns
12-16-2012, 14:47
Tag your it, my bad idea was better than this bad idea (and mine was a really bad idea), sorry mate, but you are gonna take a beating on this one.
You are quick to learn, Grasshoppa.
I second Irvings comments, why would I have to visit a government doctor to exercise my right?
Also, why would I make my health (of any kind) good or bad the government's business?
Plus, This looks like a great way for the Government to collect an hour's worth of "Mental Profiles" for later use.
TEAMRICO
12-16-2012, 20:32
FUUUUUUCCCKKK NO.
THIS^
blacklabel
12-16-2012, 20:42
Yeah, that wouldn't be abused at all.
Oh hell no. I shouldn't even have to fill out a 4473 much less perform some idiotic test administered by fuckwit G bureaucrat.
Given the amount of blame our community rightly places on mental incapacity being to blame, what are we willing to do about it?
A friend's proposal is this: Purchase of a firearm requires production of a certificate of mental capacity. Certificates are obtained by conducting a 1 hour interview with a state-certified psychiatrist. This would require development of interview standards and a slew of other intricacies.
An easier to swallow standard for most of us, but less protective: Determine a list of disorders which legally incapacitate the sufferer from firearm purchase. Incorporate mandatory diagnosis reporting to the ATF (with 6 month intervals of retest, re diagnosis permitted).
I propose this because I don't think we can appropriately say that these are the acts of sick people, but not try to limit the access of those people to firearms. I know Lanza didn't buy the guns, but I feel either of these measures are good faith ground we can give to address what we see as the problem without having to endure what we know are ineffectual restrictions on specific firearm types.
Your thoughts please.
Given the idea that most people in the mental health field feel that firearms ownership is a desease. This is not a good idea. Also consider that most of these poeple enter into this field to try to find solutions for their own problems, just makes it worse. It's like having your head in a meat grinder and allowing someone who wants to have power over you, put their hand on the switch. Go ahead, you'll probably wind up in Ft. Logan.
streetglideok
12-16-2012, 21:34
Another problem with the psych eval, anybody who really wants to pass those tests can. Long as you tell them what they want to hear, your good. Real nutjobs can pass a shrink's mind bang test, a sane person will struggle. And, just as was said before, do you know how many nutjobs work in the mental health field???
Waywardson174
12-16-2012, 22:01
Obviously this is not popular, it may even be as some of you suggested, utterly retarded. My concern is that coming to the table with nothing is not going to suffice with 20 dead 6 year olds. I'm not married to either of these ideas, just looking for something that might be palatable.
in response to your objections there are no absolute rights left. Every right has limitations. Maybe that's your point. In that I am probably wrong, but we don't let anyone drive without proof of minimum competence. How do we continue to justify ownership without weeding out the mentally unstable.
How do you recommend stopping acquisition by the mentally unstable? That's what we'll agree the real issue in these shootings is.
Also, the Jefferson quote references his belief that government should not be inherited, but built and shaped by the governed each generation anew. I like the constitution and the 2nd amendment just fine, but Jefferson envisioned no government would be intergenerational.
in response to your objections there are no absolute rights left. Every right has limitations. Maybe that's your point. In that I am probably wrong, but we don't let anyone drive without proof of minimum competence. How do we continue to justify ownership without weeding out the mentally unstable.
The answer to this is that you need to revisit the idea that freedom is not free.
losttrail
12-17-2012, 05:29
Given the amount of blame our community rightly places on mental incapacity being to blame, what are we willing to do about it?
A friend's proposal is this: Purchase of a firearm requires production of a certificate of mental capacity. Certificates are obtained by conducting a 1 hour interview with a state-certified psychiatrist. This would require development of interview standards and a slew of other intricacies.
An easier to swallow standard for most of us, but less protective: Determine a list of disorders which legally incapacitate the sufferer from firearm purchase. Incorporate mandatory diagnosis reporting to the ATF (with 6 month intervals of retest, re diagnosis permitted).
I propose this because I don't think we can appropriately say that these are the acts of sick people, but not try to limit the access of those people to firearms. I know Lanza didn't buy the guns, but I feel either of these measures are good faith ground we can give to address what we see as the problem without having to endure what we know are ineffectual restrictions on specific firearm types.
Your thoughts please.
And just how would any of us trust, let's say, the current administration, to fairly and justly implement and run this? Would any of us here trust the current administarion to failry, honestly and justly make assessments on the mental stability of any of us?
I know that I trust this administration about as far as I can throw the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan.
DavieD55
12-17-2012, 06:13
Given the amount of blame our community rightly places on mental incapacity being to blame, what are we willing to do about it?
A friend's proposal is this: Purchase of a firearm requires production of a certificate of mental capacity. Certificates are obtained by conducting a 1 hour interview with a state-certified psychiatrist. This would require development of interview standards and a slew of other intricacies.
An easier to swallow standard for most of us, but less protective: Determine a list of disorders which legally incapacitate the sufferer from firearm purchase. Incorporate mandatory diagnosis reporting to the ATF (with 6 month intervals of retest, re diagnosis permitted).
I propose this because I don't think we can appropriately say that these are the acts of sick people, but not try to limit the access of those people to firearms. I know Lanza didn't buy the guns, but I feel either of these measures are good faith ground we can give to address what we see as the problem without having to endure what we know are ineffectual restrictions on specific firearm types.
Your thoughts please.
A mental capacity license? That is outrageous! the fact of the matter is that it still wont stop people intent on doing harm to others. It will end up as a major bureaucracy that only affects good people who want to practice their god givin right to self defense. Each time something happens the outcome is to always punish the good people... You're basically saying more gov is the solution.
losttrail
12-17-2012, 07:39
Banning firearms will not stop evil from happening and evil doers. It's been going on forever.
May 18, 1927 : In the deadliest mass school murder in United States history, former school board member Andrew Kehoe set off three bombs in Bath Township, Michigan killing 45 people and wounding 58. Kehoe killed himself and the superintendent by blowing up his own vehicle.
Every mass shooting involving more than three people being killed in the US, with the exception of one, happened in a GUN FREE zone.
Two things will stop this from happening, ban gun free zones And the media from covering the events.
Richard
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What to do?
Hold the responsible responsible and do not blame the tool.
If there is a nut in your family it is up to YOU to make sure the nut cannot access your firearms. You still have choices, pay to keep the nut in an institution, keep the nut out of your house, keep your guns locked up and make sure the nut doesn't know where the keys/combo are. I'm sure there are many other solutions.
Families no longer take care of their crazy offspring and relatives, they leave it up to the government. I'm preaching to the choir but GUESS WHAT - the government FAILS at almost every task it undertakes.
Given the amount of blame our community rightly places on mental incapacity being to blame, what are we willing to do about it?
A friend's proposal is this: Purchase of a firearm requires production of a certificate of mental capacity. Certificates are obtained by conducting a 1 hour interview with a state-certified psychiatrist. This would require development of interview standards and a slew of other intricacies.
An easier to swallow standard for most of us, but less protective: Determine a list of disorders which legally incapacitate the sufferer from firearm purchase. Incorporate mandatory diagnosis reporting to the ATF (with 6 month intervals of retest, re diagnosis permitted).
I propose this because I don't think we can appropriately say that these are the acts of sick people, but not try to limit the access of those people to firearms. I know Lanza didn't buy the guns, but I feel either of these measures are good faith ground we can give to address what we see as the problem without having to endure what we know are ineffectual restrictions on specific firearm types.
Your thoughts please.
Your first option is a permit process to own guns. I would not trust a single 1 hour interview with anyone to determine anything. If going down this route at most make it a CCW level criminal background check not someones arbitrary decision.
Second option is a new list of things that make someone unable to own firearms. There are big privacy issues with the reporting suggested, medical records have limits in how they are shared, mental health doubly so. I could see this as driving people away from treatment and have little faith in the re-testing and re-diagnosis ever clearing the system once in.
Mental health has been an issue in this country for a long time. it is a cost issue; do we pay to treat the sick, and everyone who wants to scam the system, or do we deal with the effects. The decision has been to deal with the effects since they are distributed and localized, often localized to the family of the sick person. Maybe we need to change this.
If there is something on the table to give up, and there may well have to be something, put required security on there. If not in the owners immediate control they must be locked up. It wouldn't have helped this, pretty likely that he would have known any safe code, but is something that would not infringe too heavily.
Something bigger that I see looming, the end of face to face sales. Like it or not, it is a way for unapproved people to get guns. I'd rather see this go than a ban on cosmetics or accessories. (sounds like I'm describing Barbie)
Here's an idea... You need to sit down with a doctor every 6 months to see if you are mentally competent enough to speak freely.
See how stupid that sounds? Let's treat the 2nd just like the 1st... are there any laws that "reasonably restrict" the right to free speech, free press, and freedom of religion? NO! So why would we even allow even the slightest restriction (NFA) of the 2nd?
Seems as if the statists have won over even our brethren. Infringing upon my rights and giving the ATF the ability to restrict everyones GOD GIVEN rights based on mental issues that are some of the hardest to understand in all of the health world (take a look at how mental retardation, down syndrome, etc have been viewed over the course of history) is horseshit. RESPONSIBILITY dammit! Everyone is pointing in every fucking direction after all this shit except at themselves. The answer isn't in banning video games, guns, music, media coverage, or requiring classification and certification for every act imaginable. The answer is providing some parenting and raising kids that aren't psychos in the first place. You're kid shoots a bunch of people? That is on YOU, you are a fucking terrible parent and a piece of shit. That other article about "I am name retracted's mother" got my blood boiling. You threaten to kill your parents and yourself and the punishment is a day without electronics? No fucking wonder kids don't give a damn about what you say or do anymore because the majority of parents out there have played their cards and shown they are ineffectual little pussies that are scared of their kids not liking them and actually punishing the little monsters they plopped out before letting them loose on the rest of us.
Sharpienads
12-17-2012, 12:42
[Score]
Seems as if the statists have won over even our brethren. Infringing upon my rights and giving the ATF the ability to restrict everyones GOD GIVEN rights based on mental issues that are some of the hardest to understand in all of the health world (take a look at how mental retardation, down syndrome, etc have been viewed over the course of history) is horseshit. RESPONSIBILITY dammit! Everyone is pointing in every fucking direction after all this shit except at themselves. The answer isn't in banning video games, guns, music, media coverage, or requiring classification and certification for every act imaginable. The answer is providing some parenting and raising kids that aren't psychos in the first place. You're kid shoots a bunch of people? That is on YOU, you are a fucking terrible parent and a piece of shit. That other article about "I am name retracted's mother" got my blood boiling. You threaten to kill your parents and yourself and the punishment is a day without electronics? No fucking wonder kids don't give a damn about what you say or do anymore because the majority of parents out there have played their cards and shown they are ineffectual little pussies that are scared of their kids not liking them and actually punishing the little monsters they plopped out before letting them loose on the rest of us.
Seems as if the statists have won over even our brethren. Infringing upon my rights and giving the ATF the ability to restrict everyones GOD GIVEN rights based on mental issues that are some of the hardest to understand in all of the health world (take a look at how mental retardation, down syndrome, etc have been viewed over the course of history) is horseshit. RESPONSIBILITY dammit! Everyone is pointing in every fucking direction after all this shit except at themselves. The answer isn't in banning video games, guns, music, media coverage, or requiring classification and certification for every act imaginable. The answer is providing some parenting and raising kids that aren't psychos in the first place. You're kid shoots a bunch of people? That is on YOU, you are a fucking terrible parent and a piece of shit. That other article about "I am name retracted's mother" got my blood boiling. You threaten to kill your parents and yourself and the punishment is a day without electronics? No fucking wonder kids don't give a damn about what you say or do anymore because the majority of parents out there have played their cards and shown they are ineffectual little pussies that are scared of their kids not liking them and actually punishing the little monsters they plopped out before letting them loose on the rest of us.
I'm with Sharpie... Well said. I think parenting has become more and more of a failure lately... why are there so few parents that are actually raising their children? I've seen so many lately that just make me sick.
Aloha_Shooter
12-17-2012, 13:55
Given the quackery involved in psychology, the last thing I want is a clinical psychologist being the gateway to exercising a Constitutional right -- even if that psychologist has to have an MD to get the psychiatry rating. I saw my sister's psychology doctorate classmates before her graduation and am still convinced they had a higher percentage per capita of serious mental issues than the general population. A lot (maybe most) of the dissertations I flipped through still confused statistical correlation with causation and were IMNSHO pure crap.
IMO, restriction of rights should require positive legal petition instead of proving mental capacity to exercise rights. Said legal petition needs to demonstrate why the subject is such a potential danger to the community that his/her legal rights should be restricted and friends/family should be educated/encouraged on their responsibilities to use that petition. I don't think this is any different from telling the police or state that dear old Grandma probably shouldn't be driving anymore due to impaired reflexes/eyesight/etc.
Seems as if the statists have won over even our brethren. Infringing upon my rights and giving the ATF the ability to restrict everyones GOD GIVEN rights based on mental issues that are some of the hardest to understand in all of the health world (take a look at how mental retardation, down syndrome, etc have been viewed over the course of history) is horseshit. RESPONSIBILITY dammit! Everyone is pointing in every fucking direction after all this shit except at themselves. The answer isn't in banning video games, guns, music, media coverage, or requiring classification and certification for every act imaginable. The answer is providing some parenting and raising kids that aren't psychos in the first place. You're kid shoots a bunch of people? That is on YOU, you are a fucking terrible parent and a piece of shit. That other article about "I am name retracted's mother" got my blood boiling. You threaten to kill your parents and yourself and the punishment is a day without electronics? No fucking wonder kids don't give a damn about what you say or do anymore because the majority of parents out there have played their cards and shown they are ineffectual little pussies that are scared of their kids not liking them and actually punishing the little monsters they plopped out before letting them loose on the rest of us.
ok so kids are raised with no responsibility, they hit 18, are now adults. There is a term for the vast majority of people like that, losers. Some very small percentage of them are actually sick though. Responsibility doesn't enter into it anymore, they are sick.
I think that is what the root of the question is after. How do we deal with those who are truly sick. We have a solution now, the same solution that has been used through history. When they go too far they are put down. Is there a better solution?
Lots of people out there are clamoring to take away our rights to protect everyone from the truly sick, as if that would actually work. Can we come up with a solution that does not include the loss of our rights.
Given the amount of blame our community rightly places on mental incapacity being to blame, what are we willing to do about it?
A friend's proposal is this: Purchase of a firearm requires production of a certificate of mental capacity. Certificates are obtained by conducting a 1 hour interview with a state-certified psychiatrist. This would require development of interview standards and a slew of other intricacies.
An easier to swallow standard for most of us, but less protective: Determine a list of disorders which legally incapacitate the sufferer from firearm purchase. Incorporate mandatory diagnosis reporting to the ATF (with 6 month intervals of retest, re diagnosis permitted).
I propose this because I don't think we can appropriately say that these are the acts of sick people, but not try to limit the access of those people to firearms. I know Lanza didn't buy the guns, but I feel either of these measures are good faith ground we can give to address what we see as the problem without having to endure what we know are ineffectual restrictions on specific firearm types.
Your thoughts please.
The biggest issue I have with any kind of "competency certification" is that it would be the subjective opinion of the interviewer, who may or may not be competent themselves. Secondarily, it reduces a Constitutionally guaranteed right to a privilege, reserved for a class to be determined by someone else, in this case a pawn of the government.
Thirdly, every psychiatrist I have ever had dealings with was crazier than a shithouse rat.
Psychiatrists and psychologists are already legally bound to report to law enforcement any patient that they deem to be a threat to themselves or others, yet they often fail to do so.
See, guys... it IS possible to reply to this kind of hogwash without having to swear. It's just difficult. [Rant1][Rant2]
Once again, its the minority group (mentally unstable) dictating how the responsible ones get to live. Pretty soon, the only thing us "normies" will be good for is taxing us to pay for everyone else...oh wait. ;)
Bailey Guns
12-17-2012, 18:10
Seems as if the statists have won over even our brethren. Infringing upon my rights and giving the ATF the ability to restrict everyones GOD GIVEN rights based on mental issues that are some of the hardest to understand in all of the health world (take a look at how mental retardation, down syndrome, etc have been viewed over the course of history) is horseshit. RESPONSIBILITY dammit! Everyone is pointing in every fucking direction after all this shit except at themselves. The answer isn't in banning video games, guns, music, media coverage, or requiring classification and certification for every act imaginable. The answer is providing some parenting and raising kids that aren't psychos in the first place. You're kid shoots a bunch of people? That is on YOU, you are a fucking terrible parent and a piece of shit. That other article about "I am name retracted's mother" got my blood boiling. You threaten to kill your parents and yourself and the punishment is a day without electronics? No fucking wonder kids don't give a damn about what you say or do anymore because the majority of parents out there have played their cards and shown they are ineffectual little pussies that are scared of their kids not liking them and actually punishing the little monsters they plopped out before letting them loose on the rest of us.
Well, you had me in your court until this bit of nonsense:
You're kid shoots a bunch of people? That is on YOU, you are a fucking terrible parent and a piece of shit.
I don't agree with that. At all. There are too many parents who raise multiple kids and 1 turns out to be a loser. Yes, the parents may share some of the blame in some cases or the bad kid might just be a bad kid. I've seen all too often as a cop parents trying to do their best and doing everything within their power to straighten out a pain in the ass kid and, despite their best efforts, it doesn't work.
A blanket statement like that is just as irresponsible as the lefties who say it's the gun that 's the problem.
Waywardson174
12-17-2012, 22:44
Thank you all for your kind and not so kind responses. Every discussion like this, including the swearing, is helpful to me. I undergo a daily barrage from a slew of surrounding liberals and I found myself at a loss for tact and talent when it came to these two proposals. It's hard to be the guy in the room who says "sometimes 20 six-year-olds die, and that's a cost of freedom." I guess I should have just fallen back on hard line freedom under the Constitution.
On the current issue of parentage, I find it hard to believe we can really put this on parents who didn't drop their kids at Auschwitz Daycare. Take Lanza herself. The other boy has no similar issues (that we know of). As the brother of a mentally retarded sister, there are definitely challenges faced dealing with special needs/ mentally disturbed children. My sister has none of the work ethic myself and my other siblings have. My parents strove to raise her as normally as the rest of us (her capacity is diminished but not altogether incompetent) but the lessons seem not to have taken hold. Is that because my parents dropped the ball? Or is it a larger issue of the message simply meeting an impermeable mind. I think the latter, but I'm no ATF approved psychiatrist.
You still have choices, pay to keep the nut in an institution, keep the nut out of your house, keep your guns locked up and make sure the nut doesn't know where the keys/combo are. I'm sure there are many other solutions.
Families no longer take care of their crazy offspring and relatives, they leave it up to the government. I'm preaching to the choir but GUESS WHAT - the government FAILS at almost every task it undertakes.
Not an option in my experience.
losttrail
12-18-2012, 09:19
Here's an idea... You need to sit down with a doctor every 6 months to see if you are mentally competent enough to speak freely.
See how stupid that sounds? Let's treat the 2nd just like the 1st... are there any laws that "reasonably restrict" the right to free speech, free press, and freedom of religion? NO! So why would we even allow even the slightest restriction (NFA) of the 2nd?
Actually.....yes, the 1st is also under attack.
HR 347 passed and signed in February 2012, updates a law from 1971 restricting protests in various specific locations, White House or its grounds, VP's residence or its grounds, and locations where the Secret Service is, thus you cannot protest anywhere Marxist-Muslim Obama is.
Add to this the restrictions of where people can or cannot pray, mention God, display the Ten Commandments, voice disapproval of M-MO, and you have an ever increasing assault of the 1st.
Provide proof you are without mental defect? Shouldn't you be considered OK unless proven otherwise? Innocent until proven guilty lines of thought.
Who sets the standards, and how hard will it be to change once the framework is adopted?
This is an incredibly slippery slope leading right into taking your rights away. Remember the Bill of Rights doesn't give you rights, you are born with them. It restricts the government from infringing on these inalienable rights.
encorehunter
12-18-2012, 15:07
How are you supposed to discipline you kids when the school sends a letter home saying if you spank them, you are going to be turned into child services? The kids have the power over the parents now. All they have to do is cry and say "he hurt me" and the parent gets taken to jail, or at a minimum, looses their job for "child abuse."
Teufelhund
12-18-2012, 16:22
Saw this on FB today:
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/44666_314673698638040_1921060951_n.jpg
Saw this on FB today:
I saw that too! Sign me up!
Sharpienads
12-18-2012, 18:20
I saw that too! Sign me up!
Ryan I don't want you anywhere near my kids!!!
Jk, I don't have any kids.
people always say look at this country and look at that country, they have no legal guns and its so great. and it probably is safer, i mean if we had zero freedoms at all we would be safer. at some point you have to put your foot down and believe that all people should be free, even at the risk of doing harm to themselves. look at what we eat, drink and smoke. we hurt ourselves all the time, but individuals should have the right to choose. the second amendment is no different than, say, the first amendment. the only difference is those who don't exercise their right to have a gun think guns are stupid. but should we have a mental test for the right to free speech? or right to an assembly? its a very slippery slope. the closer you move towards those types of things, where the government can dictate who gets rights and who doesn't, the closer you are to tyranny. it may take 40-50 years, but you are still moving that direction. look how much the government has already overstepped their bounds in all areas of life. why would they do any different with the bill of rights.
tragedies make people irrational. all of these ideas seem like such great ideas, but they are impractical and give over more freedoms and rights of millions because of a few. there is no easy solution. to some degree you cant avoid these types of scenarios without losing rights. out of 300 million people, how often do these types of things occur? they are sad, yes, but why this country is so hell bent on removing everyone's rights because of 0.0001% of the population is beyond me. more freedoms always come with more risks. which do you want? freedom or safety?
Well, you had me in your court until this bit of nonsense:
I don't agree with that. At all. There are too many parents who raise multiple kids and 1 turns out to be a loser. Yes, the parents may share some of the blame in some cases or the bad kid might just be a bad kid. I've seen all too often as a cop parents trying to do their best and doing everything within their power to straighten out a pain in the ass kid and, despite their best efforts, it doesn't work.
A blanket statement like that is just as irresponsible as the lefties who say it's the gun that 's the problem.
I guess I can agree there are some straight up bad apples out there that can't be reached but in a lot of these cases there are guns stolen from parents and such and I was referring to that. I'm by no means advocating mandatory lockups or anything like that but parents leaving guns accessible to kids they know are quirky and the like is shameful. MOST of these parents are bad parents, my bad...
people always say look at this country and look at that country, they have no legal guns and its so great. and it probably is safer, i mean if we had zero freedoms at all we would be safer. at some point you have to put your foot down and believe that all people should be free, even at the risk of doing harm to themselves. look at what we eat, drink and smoke. we hurt ourselves all the time, but individuals should have the right to choose. the second amendment is no different than, say, the first amendment. the only difference is those who don't exercise their right to have a gun think guns are stupid. but should we have a mental test for the right to free speech? or right to an assembly? its a very slippery slope. the closer you move towards those types of things, where the government can dictate who gets rights and who doesn't, the closer you are to tyranny. it may take 40-50 years, but you are still moving that direction. look how much the government has already overstepped their bounds in all areas of life. why would they do any different with the bill of rights.
tragedies make people irrational. all of these ideas seem like such great ideas, but they are impractical and give over more freedoms and rights of millions because of a few. there is no easy solution. to some degree you cant avoid these types of scenarios without losing rights. out of 300 million people, how often do these types of things occur? they are sad, yes, but why this country is so hell bent on removing everyone's rights because of 0.0001% of the population is beyond me. more freedoms always come with more risks. which do you want? freedom or safety?
Amen to that. We take an inherent risk by just getting out of bed every morning. It's part of this journey called life.
We all agree the problem is not firearms, as it is not that of automobiles or aircraft. What is known is psychological evaluations are subjective and in the moment. It is not a criteria that can be relied upon to provide the results for which one is hoping. Moreover it would seem a willing walk into harms way to entrust one's fate to an individual that may be subject to the manipulation of their employer or guided by their own prejudice and bias.
These shootings are manifestation of a systemic societal ill. Which is beyond the scope of the question.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.