Pro Gun Control Member of NRA

[Sinnerman]

It's not just about guns. Drugs and alcohol are part of the equation. People who do drugs and sell drugs, feel they have to be well armed or someone will take their drugs away. Gang members all have guns and they use them to display power over their rivals.

Look closely at gun violence and what do you see happening over and over? Two guys doing drugs. Eventually they argue. One pulls out a gun and shoots the other. A guy who feels he got cheated on a drug deal goes and gets a gun and returns to shoot the guy who ripped him off. A large party where gang members show up from rival gangs. Words are exchanged, followed by guns being discharged. Some guy gets mad at his former wife because she kept the kids and the house and the car. He comes by and forces his way into the house and murders the kids and his former wife. Some angry person gets fired for being a jerk. He returns to his work place with a gun and shoots the people he worked with who didn't like him. A guy cheats on his wife. He doesn't want to get a divorce because she will get half of the possessions. He gets a gun and kills her. Drug addicts decide to rob a convenience store so they will have money to buy drugs. The clerk cooperates but they decide to shoot him anyway. High school kids get bullied. They go home and spend a lot of time playing violent video games as an escape. Then one of them asks his parents to buy him a gun so he will have a hobby. He and his friends begin plotting revenge on the classmates who made fun of them. They arm themselves and go on a killing spree.

Tomorrow, we will learn that a disturbed student brought an arsenal to UCLA to exact revenge because he got a bad grade, or some other reason that could never justify violence.

Mix guns, drugs, alcohol, violent video games, gangs, parents buying guns for angry disaffected kids, people with grievances, people who are suicidal and want to kill others before they kill themselves, people who spend too much time on internet chat rooms feeding on anger and others encouraging violence, and young men in places like Chicago who are so angry about the lives they are living, they just want to shoot and kill people, for almost any reason.

We are selling our home because the area we live in is not safe. We are willing to pay a lot more to live far away from inner city violence. We are moving to a place where the types of people you see on the news committing acts of gun violence don't live. It's a solution people in big cities often come to in order to avoid being victims. Nobody can remove all the handguns and all the drugs and stop people from drinking to extreme or stop youth from viewing so many violent videos. The best way to protect yourself might be to move away from the violence.

 

[Ingerlund]

News flash....Those with criminal records are already disqualified from purchasing a firearm.

Nobody is against criminals, or the mentally unstable being prevented from ownership.

How would you suggest that the mentally unstable be prevented from purchasing a firearm? We have laws that prevent public disclosure of medical histories, including mental diagnoses and treatment.

The constiution comes former to common laws. IN the interest of protecting the constitutional conditions in the 2nd amendment, law could be changed. You may also differentiate legally between "public disclosure" and "consented disclosure to a government agency".

On the form to purchase a firearm, the question is asked, have you ever been judged mentally deficient... or something to that effect. Answer "no", and what kind of background check will find out you lied? How would you correct that "loophole"? Insist that all private medical histories be made public? Do you want YOUR private records made public?

You don't have to make everyone's medical history public, you just have to find a way for police departments to be able to access medical files for people who want to purchase a firearm, or alternatively make it so that the applicant takes a short mental health assessment voluntarily, as a condition of buying a firearm. It's perfectly within the phrasing of the 2nd amendment to do so, to ensure the public militia is indeed well regulated.

A mental health assessment takes half an hour and costs about £30. A school shoot-up takes lives and costs them everything.

This isn't like driving a car... driving a car is a privilege, not a RIGHT. Firearm ownership is a RIGHT. There's a difference.

It's a right, yes. It's also a right that comes with inherent conditions. Again, ensuring the public militia is well regulated is part of the statute within the 2nd amendment.

No "license" to own a firearm is Constitutional. The right of "the people" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

To infringe on that constitutional right, is to actively break the terms of it. But requesting mental health assessments as conditional to ownership, doesn't infringe that right. It simply better meets the conditionality of it.

And, just what kind of "mental health assessment" would you recommend? I'm interested in seeing the evaluation process.

The same assessments that happen here. It's actually a lot simpler here. You apply for a firearm, and a policeman or policewoman receives you application, you undergo a short medical assessment or give permision for them to access your medical records (all in strict confidence) and they either confirm or deny your application.

As for assessment criteria, just look for anything that makes a person potentially violent: psycopathy, sadistic personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, paranoid personality disorder, sexual sadism, psychosis, schizophrenia, history of actual violence resulting in injury.

And, who would administer that test? More hired government agents, like our highly qualified TSA agents?

Whomever is best qualified.

As soon as you put the administration of "permits" under a government employee, or group, you have effectively abolished the 2nd Amendment, without due process.

Abolishing the amendment would be to say "nobody is allowed to own guns". Creating a permit system, or at the very least a requirement for proof of mental competency and fitness to wield the weapon, is taking steps to ensure the safety of the public, in that those who are clearly a high risk for violence against the public, are not able to access firearms, thereby reducing the number of unnecessary gun deaths by a significant amount. Thereby, better regulating the armed public militia.

In areas that require "permits" to purchase a handgun, you should be aware of what actually happens. Celebrities and "important" people get permits, and the "common man" does not.

The only conditionality for permits would be mental competency and no criminal record with violent behaviour. As for the idea that such is oppressive and leads to the "big boys" having power, let's be honest here. There is not a chance in hell that the few crazies who talk about "rising up against the government" ever have any chance of winning that war. The US military is grotesquely big for a reason. Stop kidding yourself.

If a rabidly anti-gun person gets put into that post, NOBODY gets permits..... again, effectively abolishing the 2nd amendment.

What ifs and slippery slope arguments prove nothing.

There is a reason our ancestors left England.... we are CITIZENS, not subjects.

This doesn't bother me in the slightest. If it was intended to have a dig, it really didn't work. I hate the monarchical system, too. However, it's really just for show. The reality is that I live in a constitutional democracy that's many, many times safer than the US, with a higher average living standard. I'm certain if guns were legal, it would not be so safe as it is.

 

[mailmandan]

 

[Ingerlund]

The US is already "conquered" lol. What do you call military policing? What would you call spending more of the public's tax money than the ten next biggest economies on the planet combined, on military equipment?

Hitler said a lot of other things. Examine his policies. America looks in many ways just like a fascist state already.

1. Hitler elicited staunch nationalism. (Germany is the best!). This served to create an us-and-them mentality. Germany could do whatever it wanted and be justified, because it was, in the eyes of the Germans, better than any other country. America currently has this same nationalistic streak and same disdainful attitude towards the wishes of the rest of the world. The Iraq and Afghan wars, for example, are perfect examples of this disdain. America are the psychopaths of the world; they don't care about other countries' wishes and interests, unless it is of benefit to them. Courtesy and manners are unnecessary for them.

2. Hitler disdained human rights. He campaigned endlessly that human rights abuses were necessary to prevent invasion or conquest. Guantanamo Bay, waterboarding, and Abu Ghraib are modern equivalents of this.

3. Hitler identified scapegoats that he could use to blame Germany's problems on, and to use as a unifying cause for the German people. Examples of those who were devalued were Jews, the Allies, the homeless, the disabled. Modern equivalents of this in the US are Muslims, Mexicans, immigrants, the unemployed.

4. Hitler made sure the military had special powers and practically unlimited funding. He also gave them special status and devoted lengthy appraisals to them. This happens in the US, where the military are given disproportionate government funding, and military service is deliberately popularized and glamorized.

5. Sexism and discrimination. Hitler's government was almost exclusively male, as was George Bush's. Both talked about how the family unit was the most important aspect of the country. In Germany, Hitler portrayed the family unit as being the hinge on which hangs the folk society. Homosexualism was also not tolerated among the populace. The state appointed itself guardian of the family institution. This happens frequently in much of the US, though there is a large opposition to it.

6. The media is controlled by only one or two people or groups, with similar aims and approaches that are in line with the current governments. In Germany, the media was government controlled. In the US, Murdoch owns almost all news institutions and there was, under Bush, little if any real independent or left wing media outlets in the US, though this is also changing.

7. Hitler obsessed about "national security", in order to convince Germans that the enemy is always around the corner, and that it was necessary to bulk up and have no tolerance military policies, which basically meant mass executions covered up as collateral. Need I compare? America's Patriot Act, and it's many other attempted spying acts, are great examples of how to convince the populace to willingly allow you to spy on and control them.

8. Hitler melded government and religion together, though he himself was not thought to be religious. He used the majority religion of Germany to manipulate the populace who believed in it. Bush did this exact same thing.

9. Hitler protected the power of corporations, because they helped him get into power. Bush did this. Obama even, to a lesser extent did this. It creates mututally beneficial power placements. The leader provides protection and lets the corporations run rampant, and the corporations promote and pay the leader.

10. In both countries, worker's parties practically ceased to exist for a while (with the exception of the Nazi party itself, in Germany). Labour unions had less power under Bush, as with Hitler. This makes striking difficult, and effectively emasculates workers of their rights.

11. Disdain for liberalism/alternative viewpoints/the arts/higher education, and having very black and white thinking. While Hitler was a painter himself, he ordered the burning of many works of art, as well as books, especially those that didn't fit his opinions. Bush, to a degree, illicited this disdain of alternative viewpoints many times (he got visibly angry very often when another viewpoint was presented), and was famous for thinking in absolutist and catastrophizing ways. A great current example of this is also Trump. He shows open disdain for academia and science in particular.

12. Both Nazi Germany and contemporary America share a clear obsession with crime and punishment. Most prisoners are incarcerated for what are minor offences in many other countries of similar economic standing (drugs offences, for instance), and the police are practically given impunity.

13. Fascism, like Nazi Germany, tends to come with a lot of corruption, where friends and businesspartners have close ties to one another in government bodies and agencies. Think of Trump for a perfect example of a leader who would utterly corrupt the financial system for his own gain. Bush did this to a degree, particularly when protecting himself and his family and associates from legal ramifications for Iraq.

14. In both countries, elections were manipulated. In the US, they are just manipulated smarter. Electoral boundaries and media, as well as superdelegates and masses of people being unable to vote, effectively render American democracy a sham.

You think your country isn't already conquered? Think again.

 

[hornetguy]

The constiution comes former to common laws. IN the interest of protecting the constitutional conditions in the 2nd amendment, law could be changed. You may also differentiate legally between "public disclosure" and "consented disclosure to a government agency".

The only conditions I'm aware of are "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed".. Well regulated seems to mean that if the militia is called up, they should be controlled and "regulated" by a trained military person or group.

Infringed is easy to understand.....

act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on."his legal rights were being infringed"
[TABLE="class: vk_tbl vk_gy"]
[TR]
[TD="class: lr_dct_nyms_ttl"]synonyms:[/TD]
[TD]restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on;[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

You don't have to make everyone's medical history public, you just have to find a way for police departments to be able to access medical files for people who want to purchase a firearm, or alternatively make it so that the applicant takes a short mental health assessment voluntarily, as a condition of buying a firearm. It's perfectly within the phrasing of the 2nd amendment to do so, to ensure the public militia is indeed well regulated.

A mental health assessment takes half an hour and costs about £30. A school shoot-up takes lives and costs them everything.

Fine... YOU figure out a way to get government agencies to work together, bypassing HIPPA regulations.

So, 30 pounds sterling is what, about $50 US? That's not an infringement? What about the poor people that can barely afford to purchase a firearm and buy ammo? Tack on another "fee" to that right?

Whomever is best qualified.

Sorry..... I'm still laughing..... see "TSA" again.

Abolishing the amendment would be to say "nobody is allowed to own guns". Creating a permit system, or at the very least a requirement for proof of mental competency and fitness to wield the weapon, is taking steps to ensure the safety of the public, in that those who are clearly a high risk for violence against the public, are not able to access firearms, thereby reducing the number of unnecessary gun deaths by a significant amount. Thereby, better regulating the armed public militia.

Wrong. Abolishing the 2nd means rendering it moot. If you inhibit, restrict, infringe that right, you have in effect, made it moot.

The only conditionality for permits would be mental competency and no criminal record with violent behaviour. As for the idea that such is oppressive and leads to the "big boys" having power, let's be honest here. There is not a chance in hell that the few crazies who talk about "rising up against the government" ever have any chance of winning that war. The US military is grotesquely big for a reason. Stop kidding yourself.

The problem with your logic is that we already HAVE examples of how this governmental control is abused. If you start limiting a right, by saying that someone, ANYONE has to sign off on it, you've rendered that "right" as moot. It sounds good in theory, but never works in practical application. At least it hasn't worked here in the US.
I have no clue what you are talking about, "crazies rising up against the government".... How is that pertinent?

What ifs and slippery slope arguments prove nothing.

It proves that your Pollyanna world of "good, honest, well-intentioned government employees" just doesn't work. As I stated above, there are too many examples to mention of corrupt local gov't officials denying gun permits to regular citizens, while celebrities and politicians, and FRIENDS of politicians have no problem at all. You think that is a fair way to regulate a "right"?

 

[Sirk]

The US is already "conquered" lol. What do you call military policing? What would you call spending more of the public's tax money than the ten next biggest economies on the planet combined, on military equipment?

Hitler said a lot of other things. Examine his policies. America looks in many ways just like a fascist state already.

1. Hitler elicited staunch nationalism. (Germany is the best!). This served to create an us-and-them mentality. Germany could do whatever it wanted and be justified, because it was, in the eyes of the Germans, better than any other country. America currently has this same nationalistic streak and same disdainful attitude towards the wishes of the rest of the world. The Iraq and Afghan wars, for example, are perfect examples of this disdain. America are the psychopaths of the world; they don't care about other countries' wishes and interests, unless it is of benefit to them. Courtesy and manners are unnecessary for them.

2. Hitler disdained human rights. He campaigned endlessly that human rights abuses were necessary to prevent invasion or conquest. Guantanamo Bay, waterboarding, and Abu Ghraib are modern equivalents of this.

3. Hitler identified scapegoats that he could use to blame Germany's problems on, and to use as a unifying cause for the German people. Examples of those who were devalued were Jews, the Allies, the homeless, the disabled. Modern equivalents of this in the US are Muslims, Mexicans, immigrants, the unemployed.

4. Hitler made sure the military had special powers and practically unlimited funding. He also gave them special status and devoted lengthy appraisals to them. This happens in the US, where the military are given disproportionate government funding, and military service is deliberately popularized and glamorized.

5. Sexism and discrimination. Hitler's government was almost exclusively male, as was George Bush's. Both talked about how the family unit was the most important aspect of the country. In Germany, Hitler portrayed the family unit as being the hinge on which hangs the folk society. Homosexualism was also not tolerated among the populace. The state appointed itself guardian of the family institution. This happens frequently in much of the US, though there is a large opposition to it.

6. The media is controlled by only one or two people or groups, with similar aims and approaches that are in line with the current governments. In Germany, the media was government controlled. In the US, Murdoch owns almost all news institutions and there was, under Bush, little if any real independent or left wing media outlets in the US, though this is also changing.

7. Hitler obsessed about "national security", in order to convince Germans that the enemy is always around the corner, and that it was necessary to bulk up and have no tolerance military policies, which basically meant mass executions covered up as collateral. Need I compare? America's Patriot Act, and it's many other attempted spying acts, are great examples of how to convince the populace to willingly allow you to spy on and control them.

8. Hitler melded government and religion together, though he himself was not thought to be religious. He used the majority religion of Germany to manipulate the populace who believed in it. Bush did this exact same thing.

9. Hitler protected the power of corporations, because they helped him get into power. Bush did this. Obama even, to a lesser extent did this. It creates mututally beneficial power placements. The leader provides protection and lets the corporations run rampant, and the corporations promote and pay the leader.

10. In both countries, worker's parties practically ceased to exist for a while (with the exception of the Nazi party itself, in Germany). Labour unions had less power under Bush, as with Hitler. This makes striking difficult, and effectively emasculates workers of their rights.

11. Disdain for liberalism/alternative viewpoints/the arts/higher education, and having very black and white thinking. While Hitler was a painter himself, he ordered the burning of many works of art, as well as books, especially those that didn't fit his opinions. Bush, to a degree, illicited this disdain of alternative viewpoints many times (he got visibly angry very often when another viewpoint was presented), and was famous for thinking in absolutist and catastrophizing ways. A great current example of this is also Trump. He shows open disdain for academia and science in particular.

12. Both Nazi Germany and contemporary America share a clear obsession with crime and punishment. Most prisoners are incarcerated for what are minor offences in many other countries of similar economic standing (drugs offences, for instance), and the police are practically given impunity.

13. Fascism, like Nazi Germany, tends to come with a lot of corruption, where friends and businesspartners have close ties to one another in government bodies and agencies. Think of Trump for a perfect example of a leader who would utterly corrupt the financial system for his own gain. Bush did this to a degree, particularly when protecting himself and his family and associates from legal ramifications for Iraq.

14. In both countries, elections were manipulated. In the US, they are just manipulated smarter. Electoral boundaries and media, as well as superdelegates and masses of people being unable to vote, effectively render American democracy a sham.

You think your country isn't already conquered? Think again.

some battles may have been won but the war ain't over yet.

 

[mailmandan]

You think your country isn't already conquered? Think again.

I still have my freedoms, including the right to bear arms, so it's not conquered yet.