The first new federal gun control legislation since 1994

I read the article, and on the surface it looks ok.

It sounds like the bill actually improves the ability of people to "audit" their status if they're on the list, and focuses mainly on the idea of the mentally impaired being kept from guns.

What are we missing that's "dangerous"? Why would Dr. Paul have a position against this?
 
Eh this is the one form of gun control i'm ok with, unfortunately, if this is passed, they'll certainly try to go further. Background checks ARE important to prevent former felons or the criminally insane, etc, from strutting into WalMart to buy a handgun. However, any benchmark beyond that is really contrived and unnecessary. I'm not sure if i'd like to see this passed, but I won't decry it as the end of the second amendment if it does.
 
I don't trust the government to define "mental illness."

The founders used the word "infringe" for a good reason.
 
angelatc said:
I don't trust the government to define "mental illness."

The founders used the word "infringe" for a good reason.
Click to expand...

That is exactly the problem with it. The gov't can decide anybody has a mental illness and restrict their rights.
 
angelatc said:
I don't trust the government to define "mental illness."

The founders used the word "infringe" for a good reason.
Click to expand...

Oh well didn't read into it that much. Thats a good point - the government can just say anyone is "mentally ill" and not issue a firearm, or take it away. Same with big pharma and ADD medication.

For the record, the NRA is a poor lobbyist group these days, GOA is much better. NRA has sold out, it seems, to the neocons.
 
Quantumystic said:
What are we missing that's "dangerous"? Why would Dr. Paul have a position against this?
Click to expand...

It, and all other gun control measures of any sort, regardless how they may be presented, are direct affronts to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Besides, who decides who is mentally incompetent to own a gun? I'll bet people who hang around the internet spouting about "second-tier candidates" aren't far from whatever criteria there may be for this. :p
 
They are just making sure the list of registered gun owners is up to date, so they can collect them in case of an emergency. This is par for the course if we are to be part of the global system. Just one more nail in the Republic's coffin.
The court will deem who is mentally ill. Yeah, I want this group of crooks telling us who can have a gun or not.
You know they need to disarm us for this whole thing to work. Vermont is giving me hope for the Republic by not participating. I wonder when the Feds are gonna go and try to take over Vermont for their willfull disobedience?
 
angelatc said:
I don't trust the government to define "mental illness."

The founders used the word "infringe" for a good reason.
Click to expand...
Me either, but I trust them more than I trust mentally ill people with guns. Granted, this should be a state law...
 
Gee said:
Me either, but I trust them more than I trust mentally ill people with guns. Granted, this should be a state law...
Click to expand...

How about mentally ill people with bricks? Does being bludgeoned with a brick seem more appealing than being shot? Maybe we should declaw/detooth them as well, since teeth and nails can be used as weapons. Or if these people are really so dangerous that they cannot have guns legally... well, lots of people buy guns illegally. I know that gangstahs with records a mile long aren't passing these background checks. Why not just imprison them indefinitly? That way they can't get a gun or a brick illegally either and are no threat. Where DOES this slippery slope end?
 
While I think that felons have taken their own right away to own firearms, I'm not so sure about the mentally ill thingy. I mean what makes a person "mentally ill"? If I go to a shrink and get prescribed some anti-depressants, am I now mentally ill?

I would have to say "mentally ill" is too vague.
 
It is in using the phrase "mentally ill" that gets their foot in the door. Even when loosely applied within reason, anyone who's taking anti-depressants is suffering from mental illness. Some reports have indicated this to be over 50% of adults.

However, there are FBI handbooks and other government documents that are beginning to expand the definition of mental illness to include, of all things, making repeated reference to the "constitution" or having "constitutional rights". "Nationalism" is being defined as a social disease (i.e. people who refuse to accept the new global government).

Keep in mind that they employ a technique called "gradualism". The federal income tax was introduced as "harmless" because it was only 1% or so. It got as high as 70%! Give them an inch...
 
I will agree with everyone else. My problem is with the definition of "mentally ill".

Who defines it? Is there a simple appeal process?

Nobody has mentioned the appeal process and that is quite possibly the most important part of the legislation.
 
wwycher said:
They are just making sure the list of registered gun owners is up to date, so they can collect them in case of an emergency. This is par for the course if we are to be part of the global system. Just one more nail in the Republic's coffin.
The court will deem who is mentally ill. Yeah, I want this group of crooks telling us who can have a gun or not.
You know they need to disarm us for this whole thing to work. Vermont is giving me hope for the Republic by not participating. I wonder when the Feds are gonna go and try to take over Vermont for their willfull disobedience?
Click to expand...

The Feds don't have the manpower. They would need the military. Which is mostly overseas. I did a breakdown on this at another forum.

Even with 250,000 troops, focused just on the 10 major cities w/ populations over 1 MILLION, and the 23 major cities over 500,000... that's 7,000 troops for each of the 33 cities.

Even a geographically small city like San Francisco (47 sq.mi.), population ~750,000... works out to something like 75 troops per square mile, while the civillians are about 16,000 per square mile.

Los Angeles... 470 sq. mi., population 3.9 million, works out to something like 7 troops per square mile against 8,300 civillians.
 
Quantumystic said:
The Feds don't have the manpower. They would need the military. Which is mostly overseas. I did a breakdown on this at another forum.

Even with 250,000 troops, focused just on the 10 major cities w/ populations over 1 MILLION, and the 23 major cities over 500,000... that's 7,000 troops for each of the 33 cities.

Even a geographically small city like San Francisco (47 sq.mi.), population ~750,000... works out to something like 75 troops per square mile, while the civillians are about 16,000 per square mile.

Los Angeles... 470 sq. mi., population 3.9 million, works out to something like 7 troops per square mile against 8,300 civillians.
Click to expand...

Add in the fact that a large portion of those soldiers would probably JOIN the civilians in defiance of orders to ATTACK THEIR OWN POPULATION. I think in a situation like this, the soldiers would realize that there is more to life than just following orders, and would NOT attack civilians but rather defend them - the vast majority of those inthe army are good Americans and would not kill their own civilians (which might be why the army wants to recruit illegals...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
The New Defense Bill Could Further Privatize Border Control
Replies
4
Views
84
PAF
PAF
PAF
The Wearables Trap: How the Government Plans to Monitor, Score, and Control You
Replies
4
Views
107
Working Poor
Working Poor
PAF
The New Radical Right
Replies
1
Views
93
PAF
PAF
J
Israel and U.S. Neocons Did 9/11 to Drag U.S. into War with Israel’s Enemies
Replies
15
Views
804
unknown
unknown
PAF
How Billionaires Who Sell to the U.S. Government Control the U.S. Government
Replies
1
Views
140
TheTexan
TheTexan
Back
Top