Posted on 09/26/2013 1:10:34 PM PDT by Voice of Reason1
Gun grabbers have found an issue where they can get almost unanimous consent across the board, including from gun owners. Nobody wants the dangerously insane to have weapons. not even the NRA. So using that bit of light coming in under the edge of the door, they’ve found a point of attack. Since we all agree that the insane shouldn’t have guns, we’ll pass a law to enforce that. And then we’ll start dumbing down the definition of “insane” to include as many people as possible.
Because in the end, this was never about helping people. This is about taking away the guns. This is the story of a vast group of extremely angry and frustrated liberals who are forlorn at the refusal of certain lines from the Constitution to simply disappear. And since they can’t rid the founding documents of the hated clause, their long time tactic has been to adopt the First Amendment “fire in the theater” caveat to say that all rights have limitations, and then to seek out every possible nook and cranny to find “exceptions” where gun rights can be infringed and weapons can be confiscated. The mental health issue is no exception. We already have a system in place for defining those who are too dangerously deranged to own guns, and it involves having people adjudicated as such in a court of law with the opportunity to defend themselves and challenge the finding if they wish. That is sufficient. If you let the anti-gun rights lobby define the mentally ill when it comes to background checks and gun ownership, soon enough they will define wanting to own a gun as a mental illness.
If we fall for that, then we truly will have the government we deserve for being fools.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
The Leftist-tyranny fans want to incrementally make it more and more like you need their permission to exercise your commonsense civil right of self-defense.
Once they’ve achieved that nirvana of control that permission will be withdrawn.
You can bank on it if we let them get away with it.
American general of the Revolutionary War “Mad” Anthony Wayne would have been prohibited from owning guns.
In the case of Alexis I still say his gun purchase was not proper-—even before he might have been a head case. He could not have purchased, even a long gun, in my state at least, because he could not have proved residency. He was living in a MOTEL. His NIX background check would have asked for his permanent address and he didn’t have one yet. And his Navy ID card would not have had an address on it. His drivers license reportedly was current but from Texas. We’re not getting the whole story regarding the shotgun purchase which means there’s more than one nut-case involved in the story.
That is what happened to the Constitution. It was ours to keep. Hence, this is not so much about the structure of how such decisions are made but about the mindset of the people. No matter what, no one can devise a system that can preclude the consequences of depravity in the general population. Hence, your concern is misplaced.
BTW, having just finished Balko's book on the topic, I'm well apprised of the concerns you related about militarization of the police.
You are already being vetted (getting permission) to buy a gun by having to go thru the NICS process. That doesn’t stop a private sale, of course. At this time.
Do we want to stop truly insane people, or not? If we do, then something along these lines is reasonable. I have an uncle who was diagnosed at a young age with schizophrenia. He was, at times, violent. To my knowledge he never had or tried to get a gun. I would not be happy to hear that he did.
The ACLU fought to close down all the insane asylums. What stops the former residents from doing some major harm?
And I know there is no perfect safety in this world. But some things can be done that won’t be more devastating than what we already experience.
“Passing laws to make it illegal for the unstable to have guns invites big time the definition as unstable of everyone who does not conform perfectly with the liberal requirements.”
Yup that’s the plan. And having a nurse, physicians assistant, a doctor, psychologist, police, school counselor make this determination by checking off a box is not due process.
Indoctrinate the kids in school (with all these huge deals with pointing fingers, saying “gun”, chewing pop-tarts)...along with an attrition plan for those who have guns might get the job done in 50 years.
We stopped keeping the mentally unstable in hospitals long ago. It started with a series of court decisions in the late 60’s and ended with emptying out our mental hospitals. It is very difficult to round someone up and get them treatment these days. Rather than recognize the failure of this liberal plan for equality and utopia, they blame guns, which fits their plan of “no opposition”.
“A doctor flagging the individual to the NICS “
And an anti-gun doctor will flag everyone he gets the name of. That’s not constitutional due process, with or without appeal.
You can buy long guns across state lines. For now. It’s handguns that must go FFL to FFL.
Whatever address was on his drivers lic had to match the one he put on the 4474 form, and that’s all.
I bought a shotgun in Nevada like that, and a rifle in some other state.
Then you include in any legislation a penalty for doctors abusing the system. Make them pay any legal fees incurred by applicant, plus a hefty fine. There are ways to deal with this.
It does in Colorado now. Universal background checks on all private sales. No FFL will do the check so any private sale is de facto banned in Colorado. Because of people like you who cannot see the problem with background checks.
Name a mass shooter that did not legally buy a gun after passing NICS. The Sandy hook shooter did not, he killed and stole to get guns. Virginia Tech, Batman Movie, Giffords and a federal judge, all passed one of your SFW background checks.
Background checks are de facto gun bans. They do NOTHING for public safety.
Background checks make progressives feel good. That is all.
The NICS system is supposed to block people who have felonies or are otherwise barred from having a gun from getting one. But it doesn’t. Why not? Because it doesn’t have complete information. If someone is deranged, hearing voices, psychotic, etc..., they would have to have a criminal record already to be blocked. Do you want to block these individuals from buying a gun or not?
The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The problem, as pointed out up-thread by others, is who is deciding which folks are not allowed to buy a gun. Put in a mental health provision and tea partiers, people posting on freerepublic.com and people opposed to Obamacare will be declared unstable and denied a God given right.
Short answer is no, we have a right, pre dating the Constitution, to keep and bear arms. Felons get guns on the black market, steal guns or use other tools if guns are not there. Cain killed Able with a rock.
Use a little logic. The places with lax gun laws, like Texas and Arizona, have less gun violence than Chicago, New York and DC where legal guns do not exist. But somehow in DC, where a spent .22LR case nets a $1000.00 fine and jail, there is lots of gun crime.
A Navy facility with metal detectors, armed guards and the strictest gun laws in the nation left all those people defenseless. Paper laws do not stop bullets.
I did not suggest that a doctor could inform the NICS & then these people would be unable to get a gun, period. I suggested that it would simply FLAG that individual for a follow-up. If there is legitimate evidence that the individual is deranged/not connected to reality, then a court hearing could be called to judge the situation.
My question stands: do you want to block the those who are clearly a danger from getting a gun? How is it best to do that?
We already have a background check system. With a simple addition, we might be able to stop the next Gabby Giffords event. And it would be simple to build in protections so that doctors who abuse their authority are punished.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.