Ok libs, NRA is evil, guns must be limited, I get it

[Airport]

"PC at Tech" what does PC mean in this context? It's probably obvious, but I'm not getting it.

The going to Saudi Arabia thing is probably a bit difficult in this case because he was an American citizen. It probably would have thrown up alerts if he had been here on a VISA or something.

Maybe I should have said that PC has prevented the general public from addressing the problem o the mentally ill and buying guns. Should mental health care professionals be require to start letting local law enforcement know about certain individuals?

 

[bornaneer]

Does it really matter who is in office? I'll survive 8 years of Obama just like all of you Dems survived 8 years of Bush. Its all about control and power which translates into money and believe me when I tell you that none of that gets back to us. . Politics are a slimy business.

 

[bornaneer]

Maybe I should have said that PC has prevented the general public from addressing the problem o the mentally ill and buying guns. Should mental health care professionals be require to start letting local law enforcement know about certain individuals?

Yes

 

[Airport]

You do realize that for the Islamic religion, going to Mecca is a requirement. Right? So you are saying we should profile every Muslim who goes to Mecca each time? Domestic surveillance.....on American citizens.....hmmm, and I thought this was a democracy.

Whether it's a requirement or not, SA and Wahabism is one of the groups that funds Islamic terrorism. If you go there, Devil should be looked at too, to see if there's a possible problem. It doesn't stop it but maybe it would given the right circumstance. Nothing that I would propose would make everybody happy but it's a starting point. SA is a big big problem.

 

[Airport]

I go all over the world to and including the middle east. Should I be on a list?

A simple look at you should be sufficient to establish who you are. S Arabia is a big problem and I would think that you know this. Wahabism is a major funder of world wide terrorism.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Should mental health care professionals be require to start letting local law enforcement know about certain individuals?

On the surface that seems like a pretty obvious answer, but maybe it isn't. If people knew that was a requirement, maybe they wouldn't seek help in the first place. There is absolutely no way to know how many mental health professionals have already stopped many more mass killings from happening. Not from law enforcement intervention but just because the person sought help and is getting it.

I have no issues with some kind of alert or something going up when psychotropic drugs are prescribed, because as somebody else mentioned, there has been a direct link to those and a lot of these incidents.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Maybe I should have said that PC has prevented the general public from addressing the problem o the mentally ill and buying guns. Should mental health care professionals be require to start letting local law enforcement know about certain individuals?

What constitutes mental illness? Does PTSD? Post Partum? Temporary Depression? What about misdiagnosis? Wouldn't this lead to more people refusing to seek help that should?

 

[Airport]

What constitutes mental illness? Does PTSD? Post Partum? Temporary Depression? What about misdiagnosis? Wouldn't this lead to more people refusing to seek help that should?

I'm also pointing our all the problems that come with any type of proposed solution. Every law has unwanted side effects. I just kinda think that there's not much anybody can really do in a free society. We couldn't even watch the tsarnev brothers after the State Dept was told by the Russians to keep an eye on them.

 

[mneilmont]

I go all over the world to and including the middle east. Should I be on a list?

Absolutely. You are obviously a shady character who needs watching. We have had a 24/7 tail on you for years. Obviously some of the folks you associate with tend to dilute your bad character and make you tolerable.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Absolutely. You are obviously a shady character who needs watching. We have had a 24/7 tail on you for years. Obviously some of the folks you associate with tend to dilute your bad character and make you tolerable.

I'm an incorruptible incorrigible *******.

 

[mneilmont]

After 50 offerings, and what has been resolved? Enhanced background does what? Does the 5th give protections against self incrimination for those who refuse to give priors or mental problems? Are we not all supposed to have equal protections?

 

[mneilmont]

I'm an incorruptible incorrigible *******.

We didn't know you were incorruptible incorrigible. Have a good day if you can get over that little affliction.

 

[MountaineerWV]

I'm also pointing our all the problems that come with any type of proposed solution. Every law has unwanted side effects. I just kinda think that there's not much anybody can really do in a free society. We couldn't even watch the tsarnev brothers after the State Dept was told by the Russians to keep an eye on them.

Hey, while we are at it, any person who listens to heavy metal music, or has piercings and tattoos, let's keep an eye on them as well. Since most criminals have any of those......

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Hey, while we are at it, any person who listens to heavy metal music, or has piercings and tattoos, let's keep an eye on them as well. Since most criminals have any of those......

Not sure why you are acting so indignant, the ideas being proposed are no more ridiculous than your offerings of banning assault weapons when we already had that for 10 years and it did nothing.

 

[MountaineerWV]

Not sure why you are acting so indignant, the ideas being proposed are no more ridiculous than your offerings of banning assault weapons when we already had that for 10 years and it did nothing.

I've never said ban anything.....you have me confused. I've always said the only gun restrictions I would like to see are mandatory yearly psychological evaluations in order to legally posses a firearm. Would that be too much to ask? We require people to take eye exams for a driver's test, why not a psych evaluation for firearms?

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

I've never said ban anything.....you have me confused. I've always said the only gun restrictions I would like to see are mandatory yearly psychological evaluations in order to legally posses a firearm. Would that be too much to ask? We require people to take eye exams for a driver's test, why not a psych evaluation for firearms?

My bad, I thought I read in this thread or elsewhere that you were in favor of an AWB.

To your question above, on the surface it seems reasonable. Who pays for it?

 

[MountaineerWV]

My bad, I thought I read in this thread or elsewhere that you were in favor of an AWB.

To your question above, on the surface it seems reasonable. Who pays for it?

Who care who pays for it. That's something you worry about later. Health insurance premiums? I mean everyone is forced to have some form of health insurance. Why not more government spending for something like that? We pay millions for stuff we don't even know or care about.

 

[Airport]

Who care who pays for it. That's something you worry about later. Health insurance premiums? I mean everyone is forced to have some form of health insurance. Why not more government spending for something like that? We pay millions for stuff we don't even know or care about.

Except the 40 million who still don't have it that were supposed to get it because of Obama care.

 

[TarHeelEer]

Who care who pays for it. That's something you worry about later. Health insurance premiums? I mean everyone is forced to have some form of health insurance. Why not more government spending for something like that? We pay millions for stuff we don't even know or care about.

My children and grandchildren already have a bill they can't pay. Sure, add more to it.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Who care who pays for it. That's something you worry about later. Health insurance premiums? I mean everyone is forced to have some form of health insurance. Why not more government spending for something like that? We pay millions for stuff we don't even know or care about.

Hahahah ok. Let's see, where to start with this one?

For starters, I care. My first concern is doing something meaningful while preserving a Constitutionally protected freedom. As with anything, the devil is in the details. What I am interpreting your response as sounds eerily like "we have to pass it to find out what's in it". Or to just pass something and then figure out the details later. If that's not what you mean I apologize and feel free to correct my misinterpretation.

Additionally, your comparison to eye exams on the surface seems ok but let's discount for this discussion the obvious invalid comparison between the 2nd amendment being a constitutionally guaranteed freedom and driving being a privilege. I would prefer to address the mental health aspect. What constitutes a "no go" for mental health in your mind? Here are some examples which would fall into the category of mental health issues: PTSD, Post Partum, Depression, Anxiety, what about being misdiagnosed? How do you get cleared of something temporary? Keep in mind, this is a Constitutionally protected right we are discussing now. What you suggested was mandatory I believe.

WRT payment. I assume you don't think personal insurance should be required. What I mean by that is now you are talking about two problems. 1 requiring a "litmus test" for the exercising of the aforementioned guaranteed freedom by the constitution. 2. Requiring someone to pay to exercise that freedom. Apply the same logic across the board to the others. Does that still seem fair?

Before you give the trumped up response of speech not killing, I'll counter with Bru's and RPJ's posts of how rhetoric is partially to blame. The north/south head nods came from the like minded gallery. So let's just leave that prepared chestut in the cabinet.

I await your reply as I am very much in agreement that something meaningful need to be done while still preserving a Constitutionally Protected Freedom. I very much agree we need to have a national dialogue on this to ensure what is done preserved what the framers felt so important they made it the second on the list.

I would also like your thoughts on the enforcement of this and how that would work.

 

[Airport]

Hahahah ok. Let's see, where to start with this one?

For starters, I care. My first concern is doing something meaningful while preserving a Constitutionally protected freedom. As with anything, the devil is in the details. What I am interpreting your response as sounds eerily like "we have to pass it to find out what's in it". Or to just pass something and then figure out the details later. If that's not what you mean I apologize and feel free to correct my misinterpretation.

Additionally, your comparison to eye exams on the surface seems ok but let's discount for this discussion the obvious invalid comparison between the 2nd amendment being a constitutionally guaranteed freedom and driving being a privilege. I would prefer to address the mental health aspect. What constitutes a "no go" for mental health in your mind? Here are some examples which would fall into the category of mental health issues: PTSD, Post Partum, Depression, Anxiety, what about being misdiagnosed? How do you get cleared of something temporary? Keep in mind, this is a Constitutionally protected right we are discussing now. What you suggested was mandatory I believe.

WRT payment. I assume you don't think personal insurance should be required. What I mean by that is now you are talking about two problems. 1 requiring a "litmus test" for the exercising of the aforementioned guaranteed freedom by the constitution. 2. Requiring someone to pay to exercise that freedom. Apply the same logic across the board to the others. Does that still seem fair?

Before you give the trumped up response of speech not killing, I'll counter with Bru's and RPJ's posts of how rhetoric is partially to blame. The north/south head nods came from the like minded gallery. So let's just leave that prepared chestut in the cabinet.

I await your reply as I am very much in agreement that something meaningful need to be done while still preserving a Constitutionally Protected Freedom. I very much agree we need to have a national dialogue on this to ensure what is done preserved what the framers felt so important they made it the second on the list.

I would also like your thoughts on the enforcement of this and how that would work.

Well said. I'm sure all of us would volunteer that we have guns and submit for an medical eval at our own expense.:sunglasses:

 

[WVPATX]

My bad, I thought I read in this thread or elsewhere that you were in favor of an AWB.

To your question above, on the surface it seems reasonable. Who pays for it?

This is not a practical suggestion as you sift through the logic. Just off the top of my head:

1. A huge percentage of law abiding citizens that own guns will pass this test. A huge waste of money and time to test them.
2. By far most killings are performed by known felons. It is already illegal to possess a gun and they would never show up for a psych exam.
3. Straw purchasers would likely pass any psych test.
4. If a citizen is declared incompetent and unable to possess a gun, what is their due process? Obviously, one exam won't pass muster. You then will have to go through the courts with multiple exams and big costs.
5. If a spouse fails the test, does this mean the other spouse can't possess a weapon? Not constitutional, imo. And the other spouse can always give the gun to the incompetent one.
6. Many of the mass killings involved guns that were not owned by the killers (stolen, obtained from a parent, etc.).
7. Guns acquired illegally are not impacted by this proposal.
8. If someone wants to get a gun, we have 350M in this country and it is not hard to acquire one without any psych test.

Huge costs to this program without much benefit, imo.

Some steps that would stop killings are:

1. Mandatory minimums for straw purchasers.
2. Mandatory minimums for felons caught in possession of a firearm.
3. Stop and frisk. Take it to SCOTUS to see what passes and doesn't pass.
4. Significant increase in patrols in high crime neighborhoods (BLM definitely hurts this avenue).
5. Huge mandatory minimums for crimes committed with a gun.

These steps punish the criminals but enable law abiding Americans to possess weapon.

 

[MountaineerWV]

Hahahah ok. Let's see, where to start with this one?

For starters, I care. My first concern is doing something meaningful while preserving a Constitutionally protected freedom. As with anything, the devil is in the details. What I am interpreting your response as sounds eerily like "we have to pass it to find out what's in it". Or to just pass something and then figure out the details later. If that's not what you mean I apologize and feel free to correct my misinterpretation.

Additionally, your comparison to eye exams on the surface seems ok but let's discount for this discussion the obvious invalid comparison between the 2nd amendment being a constitutionally guaranteed freedom and driving being a privilege. I would prefer to address the mental health aspect. What constitutes a "no go" for mental health in your mind? Here are some examples which would fall into the category of mental health issues: PTSD, Post Partum, Depression, Anxiety, what about being misdiagnosed? How do you get cleared of something temporary? Keep in mind, this is a Constitutionally protected right we are discussing now. What you suggested was mandatory I believe.

WRT payment. I assume you don't think personal insurance should be required. What I mean by that is now you are talking about two problems. 1 requiring a "litmus test" for the exercising of the aforementioned guaranteed freedom by the constitution. 2. Requiring someone to pay to exercise that freedom. Apply the same logic across the board to the others. Does that still seem fair?

Before you give the trumped up response of speech not killing, I'll counter with Bru's and RPJ's posts of how rhetoric is partially to blame. The north/south head nods came from the like minded gallery. So let's just leave that prepared chestut in the cabinet.

I await your reply as I am very much in agreement that something meaningful need to be done while still preserving a Constitutionally Protected Freedom. I very much agree we need to have a national dialogue on this to ensure what is done preserved what the framers felt so important they made it the second on the list.

I would also like your thoughts on the enforcement of this and how that would work.

My "figure it out later" response was more in line with paying for it. Health premiums for those who have insurance, and I'm sure we can find funding for others (those with government provided health cards would be covered). So, it's your "working poor" that would have a problem paying for these evaluations.

Personally, I don't care if people own guns. I'm not a fan of them, that's no secret. But I agree with the 2nd Amendment (although I'm not entirely convinced that the Founding Fathers intended it to be interpreted the way it is today). But my comparison to driving was in an attempt to show that things are already in place to provide "safety" to others. I know driving is not constitutionally protected and owning a gun is....but just like other freedoms, they can be limited (remember, we don't have total "free" speech either).

I guess my point is/was that if my eye sight is considered potentially vital to the safety of others on the road, then the mental health of a gun owner would also fit that standard. Again, my opinion.

As for the litmus test and requirements of what is "sane" and what isn't......that I don't have the answers to. I'm not a doctor, and I'm not insane (I don't guess.....). I would think any illness or disability that would result in someone not being able to rationally make decisions or deal with situations properly? I guess then you get in to things like "bi-polar" disorders and such.

And if what I was told is true, I'm even more sickened by our partisanship in DC. I was told that the Republicans blocked a bill that would not allow anyone on a terrorist "watch list" to buy/own a weapon in the United States. If so...WHAT?!?!?!

 

[MountaineerWV]

This is not a practical suggestion as you sift through the logic. Just off the top of my head:

1. A huge percentage of law abiding citizens that own guns will pass this test. A huge waste of money and time to test them.
2. By far most killings are performed by known felons. It is already illegal to possess a gun and they would never show up for a psych exam.
3. Straw purchasers would likely pass any psych test.
4. If a citizen is declared incompetent and unable to possess a gun, what is their due process? Obviously, one exam won't pass muster. You then will have to go through the courts with multiple exams and big costs.
5. If a spouse fails the test, does this mean the other spouse can't possess a weapon? Not constitutional, imo. And the other spouse can always give the gun to the incompetent one.
6. Many of the mass killings involved guns that were not owned by the killers (stolen, obtained from a parent, etc.).
7. Guns acquired illegally are not impacted by this proposal.
8. If someone wants to get a gun, we have 350M in this country and it is not hard to acquire one without any psych test.

Huge costs to this program without much benefit, imo.

Some steps that would stop killings are:

1. Mandatory minimums for straw purchasers.
2. Mandatory minimums for felons caught in possession of a firearm.
3. Stop and frisk. Take it to SCOTUS to see what passes and doesn't pass.
4. Significant increase in patrols in high crime neighborhoods (BLM definitely hurts this avenue).
5. Huge mandatory minimums for crimes committed with a gun.

These steps punish the criminals but enable law abiding Americans to possess weapon.

So, your steps won't cost any more money??? PLEASE! More prisons, more "three meals and a roof", more police.......talk about money......yours would cost more than my suggestion considering most people already have health insurance and that would be covered under the premiums.

 

[Airport]

My "figure it out later" response was more in line with paying for it. Health premiums for those who have insurance, and I'm sure we can find funding for others (those with government provided health cards would be covered). So, it's your "working poor" that would have a problem paying for these evaluations.

Personally, I don't care if people own guns. I'm not a fan of them, that's no secret. But I agree with the 2nd Amendment (although I'm not entirely convinced that the Founding Fathers intended it to be interpreted the way it is today). But my comparison to driving was in an attempt to show that things are already in place to provide "safety" to others. I know driving is not constitutionally protected and owning a gun is....but just like other freedoms, they can be limited (remember, we don't have total "free" speech either).

I guess my point is/was that if my eye sight is considered potentially vital to the safety of others on the road, then the mental health of a gun owner would also fit that standard. Again, my opinion.

As for the litmus test and requirements of what is "sane" and what isn't......that I don't have the answers to. I'm not a doctor, and I'm not insane (I don't guess.....). I would think any illness or disability that would result in someone not being able to rationally make decisions or deal with situations properly? I guess then you get in to things like "bi-polar" disorders and such.

And if what I was told is true, I'm even more sickened by our partisanship in DC. I was told that the Republicans blocked a bill that would not allow anyone on a terrorist "watch list" to buy/own a weapon in the United States. If so...WHAT?!?!?!

Most all of us would have a problem paying for it. As far as finding funding, there's finite funds and we are running out. Where would you take it from? SS payments to old folks, WIC money, Welfare for immigrants?

 

[Airport]

So, your steps won't cost any more money??? PLEASE! More prisons, more "three meals and a roof", more police.......talk about money......yours would cost more than my suggestion considering most people already have health insurance and that would be covered under the premiums.

A new expense that would have to be paid for. Do you even know how ins works? If expenses are to be incurred, premiums go up. Some people are completely clueless.

 

[Airport]

So, your steps won't cost any more money??? PLEASE! More prisons, more "three meals and a roof", more police.......talk about money......yours would cost more than my suggestion considering most people already have health insurance and that would be covered under the premiums.

Well, criminals would be impacted not non criminals.

 

[WVPATX]

My bad, I thought I read in this thread or elsewhere that you were in favor of an AWB.

To your question above, on the surface it seems reasonable. Who pays for it?

This is not a practical suggestion as you sift through the logic. Just off the top of my head:

1. A huge percentage of law abiding citizens that own guns will pass this test. A huge waste of money and time to test them.
2. By far most killings are performed by known felons. It is already illegal to possess a gun and they would never show up for a psych exam.
3. Straw purchasers would likely pass any psych test.
4. If a citizen is declared incompetent and unable to possess a gun, what is their due process? Obviously, one exam won't pass muster. You then will have to go through the courts with multiple exams and big costs.
5. If a spouse fails the test, does this mean the other spouse can't possess a weapon? Not constitutional, imo. And the other spouse can always give the gun to the incompetent one.
6. Many of the mass killings involved guns that were not owned by the killers (stolen, obtained from a parent, etc.).
7. Guns acquired illegally are not impacted by this proposal.
8. If someone wants to get a gun, we have 350M in this country and it is not hard to acquire one without any psych test.

Huge costs to this program without much benefit, imo.

Some steps that would stop killings are:

1. Mandatory minimums for straw purchasers.
2. Mandatory minimums for felons caught in possession of a firearm.
3. Stop and frisk. Take it to SCOTUS to see what passes and doesn't pass.
4. Significant increase in patrols in high crime neighborhoods (BLM definitely hurts this avenue).
5. Huge mandatory minimums for crimes committed with a gun.

These steps punish the criminals but enable law abiding Americans to possess weapon.

So, your steps won't cost any more money??? PLEASE! More prisons, more "three meals and a roof", more police.......talk about money......yours would cost more than my suggestion considering most people already have health insurance and that would be covered under the premiums.

I didn't say my steps wouldn't cost money, only that the money wouldn't be wasted. Your proposal has to be paid by someone, premiums will go up. My steps punish the law breakers only. Yours punishes the law abiding and wouldn't be effective in reducing murders. I believe my proposal would be much more effective in reducing murders.

 

[MountaineerWV]

A new expense that would have to be paid for. Do you even know how ins works? If expenses are to be incurred, premiums go up. Some people are completely clueless.

So, then, what you are saying is that we should continue the status quo or just walk around with more police because that won't cause anymore problems either, will it? (ex. Ferguson, etc)

What has been done to try to find a solution? Nothing. This attitude that you have is the problem. You are OK with things like stop and frisk, yet you say my potential solution would only affect the law-abiding citizens. Well, how many "stop and frisks" would be only those who were illegally carrying a gun? My point is that innocent people will be affected in that situation as well.

More police? Well, excuse me for not feeling more safe with more people walking the streets to protect me. How close will be be to having a true "police state"? You don't think you would feel like it would be like that? I have nothing to hide, but sorry.

 

[MountaineerWV]

This is not a practical suggestion as you sift through the logic. Just off the top of my head:

1. A huge percentage of law abiding citizens that own guns will pass this test. A huge waste of money and time to test them.
2. By far most killings are performed by known felons. It is already illegal to possess a gun and they would never show up for a psych exam.
3. Straw purchasers would likely pass any psych test.
4. If a citizen is declared incompetent and unable to possess a gun, what is their due process? Obviously, one exam won't pass muster. You then will have to go through the courts with multiple exams and big costs.
5. If a spouse fails the test, does this mean the other spouse can't possess a weapon? Not constitutional, imo. And the other spouse can always give the gun to the incompetent one.
6. Many of the mass killings involved guns that were not owned by the killers (stolen, obtained from a parent, etc.).
7. Guns acquired illegally are not impacted by this proposal.
8. If someone wants to get a gun, we have 350M in this country and it is not hard to acquire one without any psych test.

Huge costs to this program without much benefit, imo.

Some steps that would stop killings are:

1. Mandatory minimums for straw purchasers.
2. Mandatory minimums for felons caught in possession of a firearm.
3. Stop and frisk. Take it to SCOTUS to see what passes and doesn't pass.
4. Significant increase in patrols in high crime neighborhoods (BLM definitely hurts this avenue).
5. Huge mandatory minimums for crimes committed with a gun.

These steps punish the criminals but enable law abiding Americans to possess weapon.


I didn't say my steps wouldn't cost money, only that the money wouldn't be wasted. Your proposal has to be paid by someone, premiums will go up. My steps punish the law breakers only. Yours punishes the law abiding and wouldn't be effective in reducing murders. I believe my proposal would be much more effective in reducing murders.

No, your solution makes the United States a police state. Might as well put the military and national guard on the streets with machine guns. Take away everyone's 4th Amendment protections. Why not?

 

[WVPATX]

So, then, what you are saying is that we should continue the status quo or just walk around with more police because that won't cause anymore problems either, will it? (ex. Ferguson, etc)

What has been done to try to find a solution? Nothing. This attitude that you have is the problem. You are OK with things like stop and frisk, yet you say my potential solution would only affect the law-abiding citizens. Well, how many "stop and frisks" would be only those who were illegally carrying a gun? My point is that innocent people will be affected in that situation as well.

More police? Well, excuse me for not feeling more safe with more people walking the streets to protect me. How close will be be to having a true "police state"? You don't think you would feel like it would be like that? I have nothing to hide, but sorry.

I said stop and frisk has to pass constitutional muster. How would increased patrols in high crime neighborhoods become a police state? Police presence in high crime areas will reduce murders. Baltimore residents now want increased police presence. Your approach focuses the vast majority of its efforts on the law abiding. Mine focuses on the criminals. Huge difference.

 

[MountaineerWV]

I said stop and frisk has to pass constitutional muster. How would increased patrols in high crime neighborhoods become a police state? Police presence in high crime areas will reduce murders. Baltimore residents now want increased police presence. Your approach focuses the vast majority of its efforts on the law abiding. Mine focuses on the criminals. Huge difference.

Yours focusing on PROFILING. And we all know, that doesn't necessarily mean that only the "law breaking" individuals are disrupted.

 

[WVPATX]

Yours focusing on PROFILING. And we all know, that doesn't necessarily mean that only the "law breaking" individuals are disrupted.

What? I'm focusing on felons, black, white, brown or Asian. I'm focusing on straw purchasers, black, white, brown or Asian. I'm focusing on high crime areas, black, white, brown or Asian. I'm focusing on criminal activity, not law abiding citizens who happen to be black, white, brown and Asian.

The vast majority of your psych tests impact law abiding citizens. Not any criminals.

 

[MountaineerWV]

What? I'm focusing on felons, black, white, brown or Asian. I'm focusing on straw purchasers, black, white, brown or Asian. I'm focusing on high crime areas, black, white, brown or Asian. I'm focusing on criminal activity, not law abiding citizens who happen to be black, white, brown and Asian.

The vast majority of your psych tests impact law abiding citizens. Not any criminals.

Why does our military force psych evaluations on their soldiers? Yet, you think that it shouldn't be done on less-trained individuals? Because of high cost?

It's simply this.....I want to keep my constitutional rights. I like our Constitution. I don't think giving up my security and having police officers everywhere will make things "safer". If criminals have guns, more police won't make them less likely to use them. It just creates larger situations like we have been seeing and more likelihood of more race riots and violence in the streets.

If you don't have an up-to-date psych evaluation, and you have a gun, you go to jail. Simple as that.

 

[WVPATX]

Why does our military force psych evaluations on their soldiers? Yet, you think that it shouldn't be done on less-trained individuals? Because of high cost?

It's simply this.....I want to keep my constitutional rights. I like our Constitution. I don't think giving up my security and having police officers everywhere will make things "safer". If criminals have guns, more police won't make them less likely to use them. It just creates larger situations like we have been seeing and more likelihood of more race riots and violence in the streets.

If you don't have an up-to-date psych evaluation, and you have a gun, you go to jail. Simple as that.

It is absolute fact, that your approach focuses on the law abiding, mine on the criminal. No criminal is going to show up for a psych test. You're delusional if you think this will have any significant impact on murders. 350M guns means anyone can get one if they need to.

You do know the Feds don't have a registry of legal gun owners, right? How will the Feds know who owns guns and must submit to a psych exam? And, what if they don't submit? Send in federal marshalls, house to house? Think about it.

 

[MountaineerWV]

It is absolute fact, that your approach focuses on the law abiding, mine on the criminal. No criminal is going to show up for a psych test. You're delusional if you think this will have any significant impact on murders. 350M guns means anyone can get one if they need to.

You do know the Feds don't have a registry of legal gun owners, right? How will the Feds know who owns guns and must submit to a psych exam? And, what if they don't submit? Send in federal marshalls, house to house? Think about it.

You're right. Let's just piss on the flag, Constitution, and anything else. Let's put police on every street corner, national guard, and armed military men as well. Let's tighten our freedoms completely. That will focus on the criminals. That will show them. I'm on board. Yippie! When can this start?

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Why does our military force psych evaluations on their soldiers? Yet, you think that it shouldn't be done on less-trained individuals? Because of high cost?

It's simply this.....I want to keep my constitutional rights. I like our Constitution. I don't think giving up my security and having police officers everywhere will make things "safer". If criminals have guns, more police won't make them less likely to use them. It just creates larger situations like we have been seeing and more likelihood of more race riots and violence in the streets.

If you don't have an up-to-date psych evaluation, and you have a gun, you go to jail. Simple as that.

So you make criminals out of people who would otherwise be law abiding for exercising their constitutional rights?

 

[WVPATX]

stupid is as stupid does.

 

[WVPATX]

So you make criminals out of people who would otherwise be law abiding for exercising their constitutional rights?

I can't even get my mind around how someone can think this way. It's mind numbing.

 

[MountaineerWV]

I can't even get my mind around how someone can think this way. It's mind numbing.

Yeah, coming from a guy who thinks only black people kill cops and wants more police walking the street........hey, why not call these police "secret" and give them a cool name.....has someone already used "blackshirts"? What about "brownshirts"? Gestapo? What about the People's Comissariat for Internal Affairs? Yeah, those sound cool.......