What to do

[hghclsswhitetrsh]

Op give me your guns since you seems to hate yours.

[Bailey Guns]

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]

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.

[rbeau30]

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]

FUUUUUUCCCKKK NO.

THIS^

[blacklabel]

Yeah, that wouldn't be abused at all.

[roberth]

Oh hell no. I shouldn't even have to fill out a 4473 much less perform some idiotic test administered by fuckwit G bureaucrat.

[CO303]

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]

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]

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.