Gun control debate (merged)

#376
#376
DC_Vol said:
They care about protecting the second amendment. If it wasn't for the NRA, that right would likely already be severely watered down or gone altogether.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't believe that but that's just my opinion. I've never seen any politican present a bill that would've taken my guns from me. Seems like the NRA takes y'all's fear and capitalizes off of it. They're a wonderfully run company I'll say that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#378
#378
YorkVol said:
There should be a hold/red flag placed on anyone diagnosed with certain mental health diagnoses.
Click to expand...


The following?:

Depression
Anxiety
Bipolar
Anti-social
Schizophrenic
Manic
PTSD
Impulse control disorders
Alcoholism
Substance abuse

And for how long? I say for life because those conditions can come and go. Basically, anyone ever seeking or receiving mental health of any kind should be permanently barred from gun ownership.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#379
#379
DC_Vol said:
They care about protecting the second amendment. If it wasn't for the NRA, that right would likely already be severely watered down or gone altogether.
Click to expand...

I'm all for the 2nd Amendment, but I think we need to figure out a way to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. We are hampered by the confidentiality rules and the desire not to have a national database. So lets handle it at the state level. Give licensed psychiatrists, psychologists or therapists the ability to register someone as a threat so a psych hold pops up when they do the background check. Sure, they could still get guns either from a family member or through illicit trading, but we should close this door.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#380
#380
lawgator1 said:
The following?:

Depression
Anxiety
Bipolar
Anti-social
Schizophrenic
Manic
PTSD
Impulse control disorders
Alcoholism
Substance abuse

And for how long? I say for life because those conditions can come and go. Basically, anyone ever seeking or receiving mental health of any kind should be permanently barred from gun ownership.
Click to expand...


When I look at the local news about 90% of gun related crimes involve blacks. Should blacks be banned from owning guns? Would it matter? One article I read was about a shooting but it was in myrtle beach. Guess what? Black bike week.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#381
#381
lawgator1 said:
The following?:

Depression
Anxiety
Bipolar
Anti-social
Schizophrenic
Manic
PTSD
Impulse control disorders
Alcoholism
Substance abuse

And for how long? I say for life because those conditions can come and go. Basically, anyone ever seeking or receiving mental health of any kind should be permanently barred from gun ownership.
Click to expand...

Not all of these would warrant it and I think there could be fidelity in the time restrictions. Some conditions are acute, others chronic and some people have a true personality disorder. Only the last one would really warrant a lifetime ban. Treatable disorders would be flagged during their treatment period.

However, if you make the registration too onerous you will actually decrease the number of people seeking mental health care. Many are already reluctant to seek help, so a permanent ban on gun ownership will be one more reason for them to opt out--which could be worse for all of us.

This has to be a balanced, logical process, which may be impossible in today's environment (as your draconian all or nothing response aptly displays).
 
#382
#382
YorkVol said:
Not all of these would warrant it and I think there could be fidelity in the time restrictions. Some conditions are acute, others chronic and some people have a true personality disorder. Only the last one would really warrant a lifetime ban. Treatable disorders would be flagged during their treatment period.

However, if you make the registration too onerous you will actually decrease the number of people seeking mental health care. Many are already reluctant to seek help, so a permanent ban on gun ownership will be one more reason for them to opt out--which could be worse for all of us.

This has to be a balanced, logical process, which may be impossible in today's environment (as your draconian all or nothing response aptly displays).
Click to expand...


The problem with that approach is that it is too spotty, too speculative, to have any effect at all.

And in fact this is why the NRA is absolutely full of crap when they suggest we just need better mental health care or screening. Talk about just randomly taking a shot, jeez.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#383
#383
lawgator1 said:
Today's Orlando Sentinel page features the following stories:

1) Former soldier with PTSD shot and killed three people in Lakeland over the weekend. A 14 year old girl, away for the holiday, came home to find one of them, her mother shot to death.

2) A stepfather lost his temper and shot his step son in the chest over the weekend. Luckily, the injuries are minor.

3) Brothers in Miami were arguing over clothes. One shot and killed the other, then himself.


Now, if all the stars aligned in a perfect world maybe you could stop the first one. Maybe, but not probably. And in no even could you stop the other two. That's just people losing their tempers and grabbing a gun and immediately regretting their actions.

How you gun advocates just keep pretending like that is not a real consequence of your slavish adherence to gun rights is beyond all reason.
Click to expand...

Almost all attempts to form a utopia result in a dystopia.

The world is a messed up place with messed up people. We will always have messed up people doing messed up things-- whether with a gun, a knife, a car or their bare hands. It sucks. It's reality. You can't legislate that away.

But, whether you and your ilk like it or not, you are the slaves. You are the slaves to our constitution, which gives us the rights that we seek to protect. Don't like it? Move to whichever country you wish. Want to stay here? Develop some respect for the constitution our country is founded on.
 
#384
#384
Orange_Crush said:
Almost all attempts to form a utopia result in a dystopia.

The world is a messed up place with messed up people. We will always have messed up people doing messed up things-- whether with a gun, a knife, a car or their bare hands. It sucks. It's reality. You can't legislate that away.

But, whether you and your ilk like it or not, you are the slaves. You are the slaves to our constitution, which gives us the rights that we seek to protect. Don't like it? Move to whichever country you wish. Want to stay here? Develop some respect for the constitution our country is founded on.
Click to expand...


Yes, if you are an official enrolled member of a well regulated state militia, then your right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Beyond that, its a matter of standard legislative policy making, and therefore subject to strict regulation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#385
#385
lawgator1 said:
The problem with that approach is that it is too spotty, too speculative, to have any effect at all.

And in fact this is why the NRA is absolutely full of crap when they suggest we just need better mental health care or screening. Talk about just randomly taking a shot, jeez.
Click to expand...

Psychiatrists, psychologists and therapists properly licensed by their state agencies, trained and authorized to make a diagnosis is a spotty and speculative process?

On the other hand, you would permanently ban anyone being treated for any mental health issues? So your dog dies and you seek counseling from a grief counselor so you are done as a gun owner for life? Makes sense.
 
#386
#386
lawgator1 said:
Yes, if you are an official enrolled member of a well regulated state militia, then your right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Beyond that, its a matter of standard legislative policy making, and therefore subject to strict regulation.
Click to expand...


Amendment II
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.


Looks kinda like they're separate. Kinda the way many amendments were written.
 
#387
#387
govols/cc said:
Amendment II
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.


Looks kinda like they're separate. Kinda the way many amendments were written.
Click to expand...


The second clause is dependent on the first.

The need for the bearing arms is to serve in a state militia. The reason for that was so that each state could maintain its independence from any sort of federal military tyranny.

So, to the extent that Arkansas is worried about the 82nd Airborne driving into town one night, hey, go have yourself a well regulated militia.

That does not in turn mean that Bubba can have himself a .38 in the glove box of his 1978 rusted out Pontiac.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#388
#388
lawgator1 said:
Yes, if you are an official enrolled member of a well regulated state militia, then your right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Beyond that, its a matter of standard legislative policy making, and therefore subject to strict regulation.
Click to expand...

You are full of it. That's nothing new.

The Second Amendment was written and passed to protect citizens from their government. The Supreme Court has upheld the notion that its rights are to the individual citizen and not just organized militia.
 
#389
#389
lawgator1 said:
The second clause is dependent on the first.

The need for the bearing arms is to serve in a state militia. The reason for that was so that each state could maintain its independence from any sort of federal military tyranny.

So, to the extent that Arkansas is worried about the 82nd Airborne driving into town one night, hey, go have yourself a well regulated militia.

That does not in turn mean that Bubba can have himself a .38 in the glove box of his 1978 rusted out Pontiac.
Click to expand...

According to the Supreme Court, it does. According to the writings of the authors of the constitution, it does.

A lawyer who respects neither the Constitution, its intent, or the ruling of the Supreme Court... Hmmm...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#390
#390
lawgator1 said:
The second clause is dependent on the first.

The need for the bearing arms is to serve in a state militia. The reason for that was so that each state could maintain its independence from any sort of federal military tyranny.

So, to the extent that Arkansas is worried about the 82nd Airborne driving into town one night, hey, go have yourself a well regulated militia.

That does not in turn mean that Bubba can have himself a .38 in the glove box of his 1978 rusted out Pontiac.
Click to expand...

That's your interpretation. It's in line with all of your other views which are just dumb too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#391
#391
Orange_Crush said:
According to the Supreme Court, it does. According to the writings of the authors of the constitution, it does.

A lawyer who respects neither the Constitution, its intent, or the ruling of the Supreme Court... Hmmm...
Click to expand...

Ambulance chasing isn't discussed in Constitution.
 
#393
#393
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#394
#394
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#395
#395
lawgator1 said:
The second clause is dependent on the first.

The need for the bearing arms is to serve in a state militia. The reason for that was so that each state could maintain its independence from any sort of federal military tyranny.

So, to the extent that Arkansas is worried about the 82nd Airborne driving into town one night, hey, go have yourself a well regulated militia.

That does not in turn mean that Bubba can have himself a .38 in the glove box of his 1978 rusted out Pontiac.
Click to expand...

You are delusional. That is all.
 
#397
#397
volmaverick said:
Myrtle Beach shootings tied to motorcycle rally?

Six shootings across Myrtle Beach, S.C. this weekend left three people dead, breaking the beachside resort city’s total homicide count for 2013.

Myrtle Beach shootings tied to motorcycle rally? (+video) - CSMonitor.com

Not a peep on MSNBC wonder why?
Click to expand...
The truth is that reporting on black people killing black people isn't shocking enough to be news. There is no liberal angle to work on stories like that, not even gun control, because its just accepted as the norm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#398
#398
FLVOL_79 said:
The truth is that reporting on black people killing black people isn't shocking enough to be news. There is no liberal angle to work on stories like that, not even gun control, because its just accepted as the norm.
Click to expand...

Or blacks killing whites. We know where the story lies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top