The Proper Response-Get Rid of the Guns

[Rick300]

I am willing to negotiate on gun laws. My first question is "which ones do you want to get rid of"?

 

[Ccrider]

So, once a subjective standard is added to the qualifications, what prevents the medical community, party in power, or government from making changes to the DSM to prevent the majority of people from owning guns?

That's a problem with subjective standards, they are malleable. You have fallen prey to the idea that we can negotiate with people that have a demonstrated agenda. I won't move on this issue. Absolutely no "psychological" evaluations as a requirement.

As for your driver's license, Where is the right to one protected in the constitution?

Many do not realize that there are subjective and objective standards applied in the application of many laws that determine whether those acting under the color of law have in fact violated one’s constitutional rights. The concept of “deliberate indifference” is based in part on a totally subjective component.

Looking at it from a different angle, the fact that one can be arrested, charged and found guilty of a crime, and then be deprived of life and liberty based strictly on circumstantial evidence is demonstrative of how subjective decisions based on who the decision maker believes operated daily in our legal system.

From yet a diode t angle, your word against your ex-wife’s word is enough to get you convicted of domestic violence, have your gun rights stripped and you imprisoned for a felony. The founding fathers realized this problem and addressed it by affording the accused the “presumption of innocence” but, it does not change the fact that subjective decisions are made and have drastic impacts.

We all have the right to life, livery and the pursuit of happiness. In a civilized society, individual rights are subject to reasonable and necessary regulation.

If their is reason to believe that one may be mentally unfit, the government has a right to, and should deny that person a firearm. The indefensible argument to the contrary is what gives the liberal kukoos fuel to drive their irrational agendas.

We need to focus on the development and implementation of a fair system to determine when a person is unfit to purchase or own a firearm, and start the trip down the long road of applying the process in our society.

 

[Adam in WI]

We need to focus on the development and implementation of a fair system to determine when a person is unfit to purchase or own a firearm, and start the trip down the long road of applying the process in our society.

Who would you trust to develop such a standard? MD's? Psychiatrists? Can you honesty picture a scenario where implementing such a test is not heavily influenced by politicians? Because we're dealing with people who think anyone who voted for Donald, or believe the second amendment is supposed to be a deterrent against an abusive government are the very people they consider "mentally unfit".

 

[urbanrifleman]

Step one.

The ATF does not write legislation.

Any "rule" about firearms made without passage in Congress is illegitimate and Unconstitutional. Period. Full stop. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

The day that Americans allowed the ATF to regulate guns is the day they gave up their rights to own one.

The ATF is a tax revenue collection agency as an offshoot of the Treasury department, formed without any mandate from Congress. It was never, ever supposed to be a firearms regulatory agency. And as such is wholly illegitimate. And until the American people stand and up and declare the illigitimacy of these unellected agencies to make laws they will continue to slip further into despotism.

 

[Ccrider]

Who would you trust to develop such a standard? MD's? Psychiatrists? Can you honesty picture a scenario where implementing such a test is not heavily influenced by politicians? Because we're dealing with people who think anyone who voted for Donald, or believe the second amendment is supposed to be a deterrent against an abusive government are the very people they consider "mentally unfit".

You and I could make a good start at it. I don’t have a whole lot of confidence in some of our elected officials, but it is their job. They need to get started. You and I will have to keep them in check with the help of our judicial system if they go too far.

 

[urbanrifleman]

Any "rule" that can send you to jail is a law.

So, yes... The ATF is writing laws. No matter what you call it.

 

[tangocharlie]

I can only guarantee one thing. If there are parameters established that limit firearms ownership, and our government is involved in its current state, there will be problems. The restrictions imposed will be based on restricted information - medical, financial, educational, social, etc. - that should not be available as part of a determination but will be used subjectively. Membership in the NRA? Potential terrorist. Retired military? They all have PTSD. Donations to particular politicians? Radical. You see where I’m going? If we ask or rely on our government to make the final decision, decide on what the rules of the game are, if we allow them this discretion, there will be a problem. Just my opinion.

 

[urbanrifleman]

How about this.

Just say "no".

 

[kneedtospeed]

Eeelected, or Seeelected officials?
We’ll kerp them in check, just like we did with fauci, shutting down our entire cuntree, destroying lives along the way, acting as a dicktatorship!
And all the BS executive documents dementia joe rammed on US, day One!
Careful what ya wish for, as far as govt “protecting” you…
Sufficient laws have already been in place for many decades . They are Not Enforced.
Only the Seelected “guns bad” stories ever get shared by the corrupt partisan media.
Guns are not the problem.
We have a largely demographic problem, that is forbidden to be addressed.

 

[1K6BRA]

The proper response.... what he says x100 !!!

 

[Ccrider]

I can only guarantee one thing. If there are parameters established that limit firearms ownership, and our government is involved in its current state, there will be problems. The restrictions imposed will be based on restricted information - medical, financial, educational, social, etc. - that should not be available as part of a determination but will be used subjectively. Membership in the NRA? Potential terrorist. Retired military? They all have PTSD. Donations to particular politicians? Radical. You see where I’m going? If we ask or rely on our government to make the final decision, decide on what the rules of the game are, if we allow them this discretion, there will be a problem. Just my opinion.

I don’t take issue with anything you say. However, the arguments of the extreme possible consequences gets us nowhere.

 

[Brians356]

I don’t take issue with anything you say. However, the arguments of the extreme possible consequences gets us nowhere.

I agree. Consider the House bill passed yesterday. Key points:

Key points:

a) Raising the age limit for purchasing a semi-automatic rifle or shotgun from 18 to 21
b) Prohibiting the sale of magazines with a capacity of more than 15 rounds
c) Setting federal standards for the safe storage of firearms
d) Imposing as many as five years in prison if a child accesses an unsecured gun and kills or hurts someone
e) Stronger laws against straw purchases or gun trafficking
f) Building on executive actions by banning "bump stocks" and "ghost guns" that are assembled without serial numbers.

It's telling that the House, even with no filibuster rule (simple 50% +1 passes anything) and a 23 12-seat majority, could not agree to ban "assault weapons" or 11-round mags. Also glaringly absent is mention of "universal background check"!

Obviously the fall election looms large for Dems in swing districts. Even if the Senate passed this (no chance) provisions a through d probably would fail constitutional scrutiny at the federal level (some states already have even tighter restrictions.)

The Senate is discussing improving school security, red flag laws, mental health programs and enhanced background checks. But support from 10 Republicans will be needed to get any bill signed into law, as is required for regular legislation. No analyst of any political bent seems to think it possible. So as I wrote a few days ago, another nothingburger w/ fries.
-

 

[DocCarbon]

I am willing to negotiate on gun laws. My first question is "which ones do you want to get rid of"?

The 1968 Gun Act . I figure if one doesn't need to show ID to vote and has a mail in ballot automatically issued regardless whether they requested it or not . Then why bother with background checks and inconveniencing those of us who are shooters . Just SEND MY Guns via Mail ,like in the old days ; I like our Postal Lady

 

[DocCarbon]

I will never go along with political solutions to moral problems.

That's akin to allowing the devil to school one on morality !. Politicians are failed attorneys who couldn't make it in the private sector , they're ALL eager to deny others of their GOD given Rights ,along with spending other peoples monies ,while doing absolutely NOTHING for the US Citizens !.

 

[DocCarbon]

The real issue is simply this democraps want to take away ALL of the Guns PERIOD !.
They want to control EVERYTHING WITHOUT RESISTANCE ,in other words a DICTATORSHIP OF COMMUNIST RULE . Otherwise WHY would they stoop to cheating in National elections , put in a criminal demented pedophile as President ,all the while tearing down the prosperity of the USA ???

 

[Retired shooter]

Absolutely amazing that in the middle to late 60s almost every pickup truck in the school parking lot had a rifle or shotgun hanging in the back window, or laying on the floor board. Vehicles were parked on main street with guns in the back window .

No gun problems, no one got shot, no guns were stolen, and vehicles were unlocked.

If our so called leadership in Washington want to lead by example, let them give up there weapons and security personnel.

Yeah right.