Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
BTW people just to remind once again , this happened in California which has the strictest gun control in the nation, has a tactical police force that confiscates people's guns ( and relatives guns ) without a warrant if they are in a mental database, rates a A grade state from the gun control lobby, and the NRA grades California a F in gun freedom. Police interviewed the murderer and let him go,even after family warned the police. The murderer bought the guns legally under all California law, he didn't go out of state to a gun friendly state to buy them under the table.
Yet its still the NRA's fault?
Almost every news article keeps titling this a shooting spree in their headline, and only mentions a knife in the words in between. Why? Because it suits a agenda against guns, and the fact of the knife and auto used as a weapon doesn't.
I am sure clear thinking people will support reasonable gun control if gun control prevents mass killing. But basically, California is already a no gun zone, what else can be done here?
If you had paid attention, you would have learned all about it. It was all over the news. It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative snark. It's a fact.
No, I remembered it when you brought it up. Just didn't put the whole Skinhead thing together right away. Where I lived the Skinheads used to be in the news all the time, but they left about a decade ago so I forget that they're still out there.
Absolutes never make good arguments. I'm not sure anyone is arguing that simply because they seek some sort of counseling that their rights should be stripped from them.
In one is these posts someone suggested anyone on anti-depressants should not be able to buy a gun...
It might not be the party line or mainstream thinking, but it's tossed around.
Of course it isn't the fault of the NRA that they do not take up your cause to strip people of their constitutional rights.
It would be as foolish as me wondering why the ACLU isn't arguing to strip the mentally ill of their constitutional rights.
The NRA is supposed to be about gun safety at least that was the case at one time, seems logical that their legal staff should be working on promoting restrictions to people with mental health issues. Someone with mental health issues or a criminal background should lose their 2nd amendment rights.
The NRA is supposed to be about gun safety at least that was the case at one time, seems logical that their legal staff should be working on promoting restrictions to people with mental health issues. Someone with mental health issues or a criminal background should lose their 2nd amendment rights.
Its been pointed out many many many times that they support this. The medical community doesn't. You are barking up the wrong tree.
The NRA is supposed to be about gun safety at least that was the case at one time, seems logical that their legal staff should be working on promoting restrictions to people with mental health issues. Someone with mental health issues or a criminal background should lose their 2nd amendment rights.
This has been debated before, the debate on where to draw the line between public safety and individual rights regarding health disclosure. I would hope everyone sees the potential slippery slope.
It is reasonable to assume and proven like in California, that anti gun people would try to twist the law to incorporate as many as they can under a ban profile justified or not. Because, in the end their agenda and belief is nobody should have guns except a select privileged few (namely themselves and police). I can imagine how they would try to ban anybody who is under some sort of emotional distress who had sought counseling or a prescription which would be just about everybody at one point or another in life.
There was no question in the post I questioned. Here it is...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Think4Yourself
As has been pointed out numerous times the NRA sabotages the background check process and refuses to allow universal background checks even though a super majority of its members support universal background checks. Oh, and, yes, mental health records should be part of a universal background check but the NRA opposes that too.
If you just put a tiny bit of thought into things you'd already know this especially since your question has already been answered a dozen times in this very thread.
First sentence, statement.
Second sentence, statement.
Third sentence (second paragraph) statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
where is the NRA on gun safety issues other than lining the pockets of politicians with more funding to make sure there are lax gun regulations and even minimal legislation doesn't see the light of day.
Gun safety is a personal responsibility, a person is either responsible and safe in their use of guns, or not. Why is that an NRA issue? They do provide funding and training and it is part of their core function.
But what does that have to do with the question I posed? If the NRA are at fault, then they are at fault. However if the police as claimed should have arrested this person for attempting to push someone off a balcony, then it introduces an large element of doubt into who exactly is at fault, unless the NRA prevented that person from being arrested, did they?
However that said, precisely what lax gun regulations are we discussing? Lets ignore personal property for one moment because it's personal property. If you buy a gun from a commercial retailer you must pass a background check, or provide acceptable evidence that you would pass a background check (certain carry permits, or police identification for example). How is that lax? How would you tighten it?
The background check consists of checking the NCIC, and ICE databases, the NCIC contains any criminal or legal filings against the person that the state filed, it's imperfect but that's not the NRA's fault. Which means that anyone who has been involuntarily committed, or found by a court that they are a danger to themselves or others is prohibited from buying a firearm, clearly any convictions are also in there. Do the NRA prevent States from filing those reports? If not then they are not at fault.
On personal property, well it's your personal property, you must follow the law regarding sales in a firearms case you cannot sell to someone who you suspect is a prohibited person, or who is not resident in your state. I can sell a car to anyone, from any state, I can sell a hammer to anyone from any state, but not a firearm, even though it's my property, isn't that a regulation, is it lax? If you consider it lax would you be prepared to do the same on any property you own? Would you be prepared to have even more restrictions on selling that property added, for example requiring a background check that would need to be paid for?
As I also asked what's the proposal, eliminate due process? According to the 5th Amendment no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Do you really want to start blurring the edge on that, because we know that once an edge is starting to blur that it doesn't end there, look at the Patriot Act and the NSA surveillance of Americans, that's precisely what happens when the line is blurred. Which rights and which liberties do you hold dear that might be affected, I can tell you right now it's not "none".
Think I don't know this. Found, this out when I had two family members killed for no reason.. Two different cases in two different States.
I know only too well, that the mentally ill walk among us. The person who killed my Aunt his family member tried over and over again to get the ill person help. Without his consent written in stone more or less, he did not get the help he needed.
He needed to be on medication. The person ended up taking his life in prison when he came to the realization of what he did to my aunt. He was extremely sick, and also doing drugs, a lethal combination.
So who is at fault here! we should never have the people walking around who are mentally ill in a Country such as ours.
I know plenty of good people who are very responsible gun owners including myself. The people I know hunters included, have owned and stored their guns properly for over twenty-five years. With no incidences what so ever.
This has been debated before, the debate on where to draw the line between public safety and individual rights regarding health disclosure. I would hope everyone sees the potential slippery slope.
This is indeed a difficult question. With someone like what we had here it falls on the easy side. He had been violent in the past, he was threatening others in writing and his parents were warning the authorities that he was a problem waiting to happen.
Now if a professional had been sent to evaluate him as opposed to the police maybe a very different determination would have happened. No, all of them will not be that easy but until we realize the fault lies in the people as opposed to the object we will never start the discussion
Quote:
It is reasonable and proven to assume, that anti gun people would try to twist the law to incorporate as many as they can under a ban profile justified or not. Because, in the end their agenda and belief is nobody should have guns except a select privileged few (namely themselves and police). I can imagine how they would try to ban anybody who is under some sort of emotional distress who had sought counseling or a prescription which would be just about everybody at one point or another in life.
Luckily they don't get to decide. The courts will or should in a situation where we protects an individuals rights.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
