The first new federal gun control legislation since 1994

[Gee]

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?

We don't allow drunks to drive, why should we allow mentally ill people to own guns? Guns and cars are two things which kill a large number of americans. Granted, I'm not saying mental health may really be enforceable (even if it is, he could still make a bomb, etc), and it should be done on a state level, but the concept is sound. Everyone has a right to defend themselves, and a weapon in the hand of someone as crazy as the VT shooter is an imminent threat.

 

[mdh]

We don't allow drunks to drive, why should we allow mentally ill people to own guns? Guns and cars are two things which kill a large number of americans. Granted, I'm not saying mental health may really be enforceable (even if it is, he could still make a bomb, etc), and it should be done on a state level, but the concept is sound. Everyone has a right to defend themselves, and a weapon in the hand of someone as crazy as the VT shooter is an imminent threat.

The drunk driving argument ignores a couple of facts. First off, the second amendment enumerates the right to bear arms. Not the right of people who modern shrinks find sane to bear arms. (Note: 100 years ago, homosexuality was considered a form of insanity by the head shrinker community). Second off, the reasoning for the second amendment cannot be applied to driving cars. We all know what I'm referring to here.

 

[SeanEdwards]

I could keep going for hours...

When we start interpretting the constitution, we stop adhering to its' most basic principles. - Me, just now.

You can keep making strawman arguments for hours? Good for you.

 

[Gee]

The drunk driving argument ignores a couple of facts. First off, the second amendment enumerates the right to bear arms. Not the right of people who modern shrinks find sane to bear arms. (Note: 100 years ago, homosexuality was considered a form of insanity by the head shrinker community). Second off, the reasoning for the second amendment cannot be applied to driving cars. We all know what I'm referring to here.

I agree with that. While I think, ideally, any constitution should only require responsible adults be armed, I don't think restricting gun ownership would really help. Then we'd just have people like the VT shooter making bombs, or driving trucks into crowds. The bombings in Iraq are far more blood-soaked than ours, and they usually don't involve firearms.

 

[SeanEdwards]

I'm an Iraq War Veteran with minor Post Traumatic Stress symptoms. The VA could identify me as being mentally ill or unstable and they could deny me my 2nd Amendment Rights to keep and bear arms. That is just absurd.

If a jury of 12 of your peers unanimously believes you to be dangerously insane due to PTSD, then yeah, your second amendment rights should be restricted. Sorry. I don't want deranged people driving in my neighborhood either, so hand over your car keys too if you're nuts.

 

[qednick]

If a jury of 12 peers finds someone to be "dangerously insane" they should be in an institution receiving help. The problem is that "dangerously insane" people are not getting the help (VA Tech shooter - case in point) and are out in society where they can buy guns either legally or illegally.

I'm not sure blind people should not be allowed to bear arms because "arms" does not necessarily just mean handguns. If you were a blind lady and about to be raped by a thug then I think you might appreciate being able to [legally] fight back using any means necessary.

I found out yesterday that my 23 year old cousin was raped by two thugs in Britain last year (my mother only just decided to tell me). She was born deaf and dumb. Tony Blair's glorious socialist government there decided that people do not have any right to carry any form of "arm" for self-defense (contrary to the 1689 Bill of Rights) and so even carrying pepper spray will get you arrested for carrying an offensive weapon. This is in a country that gave the world the concept of "Hue and Cry" and gave the US the concept of the right to bear arms in the first place. This is a country where, just 100 years ago, it was common for anybody (children and mental patients included) to openly or concealed carry firearms.
Strangely, back then, the crime rates had never been lower. Now crime is totally out of control yet people can't defend themselves with pepper spray, firearms, stun guns or even rolled up newspapers because apparently it's the governments job to defend you and against the law to do so yourself - even if you're blind, mentally ill, deaf and dumb and being raped.

 

[Quantumystic]

All this talk of military *men and women*... real human beings? Has no one else seen the rapid advances in autonomous/remotely controlled un-manned air and land vehicles being deployed by the DoD all around the world? Who needs humans.

I'm not terribly concerned about those. I did a wee bit of R&D during the Reagan 2nd term, and much of what's out there is surprisingly easy to defeat. Besides, I hate the idea of having our own troops used against us... but I don't know anyone who wouldn't fry a piece of Robo-Tech.

 

[angelatc]

Me either, but I trust them more than I trust mentally ill people with guns. Granted, this should be a state law...

Actually, the Constitution clearly does not give that right to the States.

I'm not a gun person. ACtually, I'd buy one now only if I was connected enough to get one on the black market. I don't want mine to be a matter of public record.

If people think that the 2nd Amendment is outdated, that's fair enough. BUt that means they need to change it, not ignore it.

 

[Duckman]

Food for thought

The main thing I don't like about this new legislation is the fact that it has the aura of being passed through quickly in order to make the public feel good that congress had "done something about VT," even though it's questionable whether or not this new law would have actually prevented VT.

In general, I think it's a step backwards when a tragedy occurs and someone decides "wow, if there had only been a law to prevent that." Laws have unintended side-effects, and and in my opinion their passage should be kept to a minimum.

That all being said, the issue of the rights of the mentally ill is a tough one for liberty minded people to agree on. Most would (hopefully) agree that liberty should apply to everyone, equally. However, an arbitrary decision has been made in society that the mentally ill do not always deserve the same liberties as others. This is made more problematic when it is the job of the government to define the group in question (the "mentally ill").

This is why, in general, I prefer treating people as individuals and denying their rights ONLY if they have proven their rights need to be denied because of a lack of personal responsibility in a specific case. If someone has a history of violent outbursts which have been complained about by others, in my mind such a person perhaps should legitimately be denied the right to bear arms. But I would much prefer this being determined on a case-by-case basis rather than by a "one size fits all" fiat.

I think the idea that you would pre-emptively strip someone of their rights based on the suspicion that they could not be trusted with it is the moral equivalent of going to war pre-emptively, when you suspect the nation in question might be dangerous but it hasn't actually attacked you yet. Think about it.

 

[Quantumystic]

Depending upon your circumstances and needs, you might wanna look into some of the following:

recurve or crossbow
throwing knives
a BIG dog (or 3!)
an "asp"
taser
squirtgun filled with bleach (a lighter goes well w/ this, if it comes to that)
ladies... can of hairspray (also w/ lighter)
and my personal favorite... swords

I've even see people make their own "fill" for paintball guns, some of which can fire at 17 rounds per second.

ALL of these, to the best of my knowledge, are still available w/ NO registration.

 

[wwycher]

The comments on this article were mostly pro-gun control.
This former police officer I thought summed it up pretty well.

infoasked wrote:
As a former police officer, I will tell all citizens that the police cannot protect you. There job is to "enforce the law," thus they act only when a law is broken.

Further, YOU must understand that an armed populace is the single greatest defense against a despotic government; and our govern- ment has been eroding the rights of its citizenry for many of the past 50 years under the guise of protection from whatever the lastest (real or imaginary) threat may be.

Folks, you are no safer now than at anytime in the past . . . unless you own and are trained in the use of a firearm. The bull you go through to board an airplane makes you no safer from any determined hijacker and the only thing that this "anti-gun" legislation does is help the criminal when choosing a victim.

The goal of the U.N. is to disarm the law-abiding people of the earth to enhance its socialist agenda and allow the abitious despots of the world to control all. Many of our legislators are buying into this in order to enhance there positions in the New World Order. Our Founding Fathers knew this was possible, hence the 2nd Ammendment.

Please read more and listen to less retoric from those who would disarm others. If you fear guns, learn about them and have a qualified instructor teach you the use of a firearm. Once you've done this, should you decide it is not for you, so be it. Just don't decide for others who would protect themselves and their freedom.

Be watchful of YOUR governing bodies and NEVER surrender any of your rights willingly.
6/13/2007 9:46:28 AM

 

[qednick]

The comments on this article were mostly pro-gun control.
This former police officer I thought summed it up pretty well.

infoasked wrote:
As a former police officer, I will tell all citizens that the police cannot protect you. There job is to "enforce the law," thus they act only when a law is broken.

Further, YOU must understand that an armed populace is the single greatest defense against a despotic government; and our govern- ment has been eroding the rights of its citizenry for many of the past 50 years under the guise of protection from whatever the lastest (real or imaginary) threat may be.

Folks, you are no safer now than at anytime in the past . . . unless you own and are trained in the use of a firearm. The bull you go through to board an airplane makes you no safer from any determined hijacker and the only thing that this "anti-gun" legislation does is help the criminal when choosing a victim.

The goal of the U.N. is to disarm the law-abiding people of the earth to enhance its socialist agenda and allow the abitious despots of the world to control all. Many of our legislators are buying into this in order to enhance there positions in the New World Order. Our Founding Fathers knew this was possible, hence the 2nd Ammendment.

Please read more and listen to less retoric from those who would disarm others. If you fear guns, learn about them and have a qualified instructor teach you the use of a firearm. Once you've done this, should you decide it is not for you, so be it. Just don't decide for others who would protect themselves and their freedom.

Be watchful of YOUR governing bodies and NEVER surrender any of your rights willingly.
6/13/2007 9:46:28 AM

Well said. The courts have already ruled several times that law enforcement are not obligated to protect citizens.

 

[Therion]

Well said. The courts have already ruled several times that law enforcement are not obligated to protect citizens.

In that case, what the hell is the point of government anyway?

 

[hambone1982]

If a jury of 12 of your peers unanimously believes you to be dangerously insane due to PTSD, then yeah, your second amendment rights should be restricted. Sorry. I don't want deranged people driving in my neighborhood either, so hand over your car keys too if you're nuts.

The way that the law is written is that I am guilty until proven innocent. The VA can claim that I'm mentally unstable and I have to go to court to prove otherwise. That is a violation of habeas corpus and my 2nd amendment rights. I don't know if you have any experience in with the VA, but they make mistakes all the time. They might even make a blanket classification that all sufferers of PTSD as mentally unstable or ill, thus violating the rights of 25% of all Iraq War Veterans who suffer from PTSD in one form or another.

Also, as I said before, if there can be any gun control legislation that does not violate the 2nd amendment, then according to the 10th amendment, this has to be done on the state or local level. The federal government has no authority to restrict gun ownership. Just as it has no authority to restrict land ownership.

 

[ThePieSwindler]

Wrote my congressman, but it is too late. Its already passed in the house.

 

[DrStrabismus]

Someone noticed in another post that the article that this thread start with has been edited to delete the mention of Ron Paul.

*edit: actually the article mentioned in the other thread is an AP story. This thread starts with a Washington Post story, so I guess both have been edited since

 

[tnvoter]

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?

Well said. People never look to the future in the sense- what if a REAL bad guy gets in office, and the next "disaster" happens... all it takes is to use laws that already exist now to disarm the people and declare martial law.

This is seriously rediculous, and something out of a scary movie.