Would you volunteer to a mental healt...
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Flying Spaghetti Monster”

Since: Nov 11

Stone County, Arkansas

#21 Jan 27, 2013
ifey wrote:
<quoted text>
If gun bans worked, Chicago, Washington, New York and Detroit would be the safest places in the country. On the contrary, They are some of the most violent. Remove the incentive to kill helpless childress who can't fight back. DO AWAY WITH GUN FREE ZONES. They just produce a target rich environment. Do like the town in Georgia outside of Atlanta, that has had ONE murder in 5 years, require all adult heads of households who have no objection, to keep a firearm in their house and receive yearly training, to help local authorities during disasters. THAT OBVIOUSLY WORKS, but you won't even acknowledge that.
Urban areas will always be the most dangerous segments of our society. Living in close quarters with high population densities and other societal issues such as illegal drug use and gang activity will ensure this.
No one should own a firearm as a matter of municipal 'expectation.' There's nothing worse than owning a firearm and not having the intestinal fortitude to pull the trigger when warranted; the result is usually tragically opposite of what was intended. Your example doesn't make logical sense. Why require citizens of a community to own a weapon with the option to opt out if they are uncomfortable possessing them? If you wanted a firearm you will already have made the purchase.

“Flying Spaghetti Monster”

Since: Nov 11

Stone County, Arkansas

#22 Jan 27, 2013
I was hopeful there would be more response to the original question posed. I personally have no reservations about passing a mental health exam.
I can see where there would be a slew of lawsuits when some people fail the exam. Would they have recourse?
It is a difficult issue that needs to be addressed at some point.
Yikes

Farmington, MO

#23 Jan 27, 2013
Bleeding heart yellow dog wrote:
I'll vote for it in a heartbeat, not that ill have a chance because Obama will get it through on his own. Nothing you can do about it. I'll even let you hillbilly gun nuts in on a little secret: once its passed, anyone who wants a gun will be deemed by the government to be insane, thus disqualifying you from buying new guns and qualifying you for confiscation of the ones you have. That means that in less than a decade from now, complete disarmament. I'm just glad that our agenda has finally gone far enough to be able to rub it in your faces now that there's nothing you violent gun nuts can do to stop it.
The only one who sounds nuts on this thread is you.
ifey

Mountain View, AR

#24 Jan 27, 2013
Bra utan Gud wrote:
I was hopeful there would be more response to the original question posed. I personally have no reservations about passing a mental health exam.
I can see where there would be a slew of lawsuits when some people fail the exam. Would they have recourse?
It is a difficult issue that needs to be addressed at some point.
Just remember Bra!! Ther people running the country now are the same liberal wimps who spit on the Vietnam Vets when they returned home. You, I don't know about, but I do recognized the people in government, some by name. To think that anything they say is good for us is Stupidity. You may not like what they've done in georgia, but you can't refute the fact that it works!!!! Of couse, then again, maybe you can. Everyone else ignores the truth and lies like dogs so I take that statement back.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#25 Jan 27, 2013
more emphasis should be placed on the sellers and owners if your kid takes your gun to school and kills people you should be criminaly and civily liable.
Bleeding heart yellow dog

United States

#26 Jan 27, 2013
Bra utan Gud wrote:
<quoted text>
Going from restriction of assault weapons/ammunition access that comprise less than 2% of total gun sales to complete disarmament of the civilian populace is a leap across the Grand Canyon with nothing more than a pogo stick. The reality is that most Americans are willing to compromise for the greater good of our society but that doesn't include adopting the mentality of a grazing herd of cows.
Dress it up however you like Bra. There's not going to be a compromise this time. Obama IS going to get mandatory registration of ALL firearms. Then, its all down hill from there. Like I said, we have plenty of examples of how to do this. Disarmament always begins with mandatory registration. We democrats ARE going to see it through this time now that we have a leader who isn't worried about the future of his wife's political career.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#27 Jan 27, 2013
Bleeding heart yellow dog wrote:
<quoted text>
Dress it up however you like Bra. There's not going to be a compromise this time. Obama IS going to get mandatory registration of ALL firearms. Then, its all down hill from there. Like I said, we have plenty of examples of how to do this. Disarmament always begins with mandatory registration. We democrats ARE going to see it through this time now that we have a leader who isn't worried about the future of his wife's political career.
never going to happen
WhereIsAmerica

New York, NY

#32 Jan 28, 2013
Would you volunteer to a screening of your DNA to determine if your bloodline is fitting to have a child brought into this world? That sentence sounds about as stupid as the question put before us. I can see that being discussed in a Progressive liberal society. Think about it, if we had to have that screening the deaths caused by guns could be avoided, plus many more crimes. I think this should be put in as an executive order and implemented immediately.
Our Progressive liberal government will take care of this and make sure no one has any rights after it is over with. Guns will be first and soon you will wake up and wonder why you are not able to post your opinion on the internet, why you have no books in the library to read (but what they want you to read),why you are not allowed to travel the roads freely, why you no longer can cast a ballot! The decay of our country is at hand and if we don't stand up now we will be the minions who let it happen. They have a motive, they have a plan. The plan is to quite the people! Our world will never be warm, fuzzy, and safe as the Progressives lead you to believe.
SomeoneWithKnowl edge

Mountain Home, AR

#34 Feb 1, 2013
WhereIsAmerica wrote:
Would you volunteer to a screening of your DNA to determine if your bloodline is fitting to have a child brought into this world? That sentence sounds about as stupid as the question put before us. I can see that being discussed in a Progressive liberal society. Think about it, if we had to have that screening the deaths caused by guns could be avoided, plus many more crimes. I think this should be put in as an executive order and implemented immediately.
Our Progressive liberal government will take care of this and make sure no one has any rights after it is over with. Guns will be first and soon you will wake up and wonder why you are not able to post your opinion on the internet, why you have no books in the library to read (but what they want you to read),why you are not allowed to travel the roads freely, why you no longer can cast a ballot! The decay of our country is at hand and if we don't stand up now we will be the minions who let it happen. They have a motive, they have a plan. The plan is to quite the people! Our world will never be warm, fuzzy, and safe as the Progressives lead you to believe.
I couldn't have siad it any better! We better wake up America.
Fried Horse

Mountain View, AR

#35 Feb 1, 2013
I would not want to submit to a mental health screening, in order to purchase a gun. However, if someone has been seeing a mental health professional, and the doctor believes there is a problem, they could be flagged for issues that would prohibit them from purchasing firearms. Also, if someone is flagged for mental instability, they should not be allowed access to weapons. If they live in a home where such weapons exist, those weapons could be secured.

Both James Holmes (Colorado movie shooter,) and Adam Lanza (Connecticut school shooter) were already being treated for mental health problems. The mental health professional where Holmes was attending college in Colorado, had already alerted campus police to his condition. Nothing was done, because the authorities had no legal basis to do anything. That is something that could be fixed.

Adam Lanza was just about to be institutionalized. His mental health problems were well established. The weapons to which he had access were the property of his mother. Knowing that there was an unstable individual in the home, the mother could have secured those weapons. There could be a procedure where the authorities could have secured the weapons for her, simply because she had an unstable individual in the home. Again, like the situation with Holmes, there is no legal procedure for handling such a situation. This could also be fixed.

I do not think there is a need to have mental health screenings for all gun purchases. What we need is for existing mental health diagnosis to be included in background checks. Also, there could be legal procedures for dealing with unstable persons, and their ability to access firearms. Right now, we have no such procedures.

Then we have situations like the one in Midland City, AL. Right now, Jimmy Lee Dykes is there in his underground bunker, holding the five year old son of one of his neighbors hostage. He walked onto a school bus on Wednesday and took the child, after shooting the school bus driver dead.

Now Mr. Dykes had been threatening his neighbors for a year, since he moved into the neighborhood. He had already killed one neighbor's dog, with a lead pipe, simply for coming into his yard. He had also threatened neighborhood children, with firearms.

He actually had fired shots at some of his neighbors, and was supposed to go to court, on Wednesday, for a terroristic threatening charge. That is when he went ballistic, killed a bus driver, and took a five year old boy hostage. They are still holed up in a bunker, as I type this.

I don't think there is any word on whether Jimmy Dykes had any existing mental health diagnosis. However, it would have seemed prudent to remove the guy's weapons, and put a hold on his ability to purchase firearms, until his court case was heard. Now, the bus driver is dead, and a five year old boy is at risk. Again, we have no legal procedures to deal with such a situation. This could also be fixed.

I am a gun owner. I always have been. I enjoy target shooting, and the feeling of security I get from being armed. I would like to keep these rights. Many in the gun lobby seem to think that the Second Amendment is a verse from the Bible, or something untouchable. What they need to realize is that the right to own a gun is just one short Supreme Court decision away from extinction.

We gun owners must protect our right, by being reasonable. The more zealous in the gun lobby seem to be taking the all or nothing approach. The problem with that, is that when you hold out for all, you run the risk of getting nothing.

Literally, if you read the Second Amendment, you can see how easily gun ownership could be taken away with a simple reinterpretation, by the Supreme Court. Folks love the part of the Second Amendment, after the comma. The tricky part, is what comes before the comma. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,..." Think about what that means.

Since: May 12

Mountain View, AR

#36 Feb 1, 2013
Personally I think the preamble to the constitution trumps the second amendment. "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" over the right of a bunch of crazies and insurrectionist who continually threaten the population with their hateful rhetoric and threats of overthrowing the government with their guns. I am a gun owner and I have no problem with having a security check. I have had many (including Top Secret clearances) in my lifetime. I just got back from Australia where every one has to register their guns and have a permit to own one. That seems to work as there are very few shootings. I you break the law for any reason, beat your wife, drunk driving or whatever, your gun license is revoked and they take your guns away. I think that is the way it should be here.
Fried Horse

Mountain View, AR

#37 Feb 1, 2013
Australia's gun laws have been successful, in many respects. I do not wish for the exact same system, though. Theirs' is a very restrictive system. I do not think that system would be acceptable to most Americans. The Second Amendment is a point of heritage to many Americans. Many consider it a birthright. I think they would feel their right infringed upon, under the Aussie system.

As far as the Preamble trumping anything in the Bill of Rights, I disagree. The Preamble is not law, and was not designed to be. The Bill of Rights is the most important document in America. It must be scrutinized, and interpreted very carefully. Although some Amendments may seem antiquated in some respects, they represent hundreds of years of hard fought changes to our supreme governing document. That is why they are called "Amendments."

At the very beginning of the Amendments we get free speech, press, religion, assembly, and the right to have a gun. All that from just the first two Amendments, mind you. Good stuff. There is more good stuff in the later amendments. My point is that the U.S. Constitution is very important. Duh, but that is what this whole gun debate is about. The debate is not about what is right or wrong, at the moment. It's about not only what the Constitution says, but more importantly what it means. This is where we must tread very carefully.

The right to own a gun was something that our founders believed was important. They did construct a document that has produced the most powerful nation that the World has ever known. That document has held up, for over 220 years. We should respect that those men understood something essential to society. We need to be very careful how we handle this debate.

Our Bill of Rights was based on the English Bill of Rights. They also have a right to bare arms. All it took was a slightly different interpretation of the document, by the English Parliament and courts, to take that right away from their citizens, after WW2. If we wish to preserve our right to arms, we must be willing to be "well regulated."

Fortunately, "a bunch of crazies and insurrectionist who continually threaten the population with their hateful rhetoric and threats of overthrowing the government with their guns," are not who represents the core of American society.(That was brilliantly constructed, by the way.) We are, at our core, a very reasonable people. If not from our temperament, then through our system. We will find a way to make this situation better.
ifey

Mountain View, AR

#38 Feb 1, 2013
You know, you call those of us who value our guns, crazy, but no matter what you tell yourself, this cuntry can not go on spending 6 or 7 trillion dollars a year that it doesn't have. No business, household or country can do that and survive. The people have learned that they can vote themselves FREE stuff and no nation survives long after that. Look at history. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. When this economy fails, I DON'T INTEND TO BE LEFT WITH A REVOLVER AND A SHOTGUN TO PROTECT WHAT IS MINE. When Hitler signed the Nazi Gun Ban, he surrounded himself on stage with children. Sound familiar??
Fried Horse

Mountain View, AR

#39 Feb 1, 2013
Uh... Hitler and the NAZI party actually relaxed gun laws in Germany. It was the government previous to Adolf Hitler that made Germany's severe gun restrictions, as part of their compliance with the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler relaxed those laws in 1928, and then again in 1938.
ifey

Mountain View, AR

#40 Feb 3, 2013
Only two months before the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, Congress enacted legislation to authorize the President to requisition broad categories of property with military uses from the private sector on payment of fair compensation, but also provided:

Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed--

(1) to authorize the requisitioning or require the registration of any firearms possessed by any individual for his personal protection or sport (and the possession of which is not prohibited or the registration of which is not required by existing law),[or]

(2) to impair or infringe in any manner the right of any individual to keep and bear arms

This is back when Congress had balls.
Fried Horse

Mountain View, AR

#41 Feb 3, 2013
That was a clause written into the Property Requisition Act of 1941. It was put in there as a reaction to European efforts to requisition private firearms, for military use. The Brits did a lot of that.

Besides, I don't think anyone has proposed registration of all firearms. Is that even an issue?

“Flying Spaghetti Monster”

Since: Nov 11

Stone County, Arkansas

#42 Feb 7, 2013
ifey wrote:
<quoted text>
Just remember Bra!! Ther people running the country now are the same liberal wimps who spit on the Vietnam Vets when they returned home. You, I don't know about, but I do recognized the people in government, some by name. To think that anything they say is good for us is Stupidity. You may not like what they've done in georgia, but you can't refute the fact that it works!!!! Of couse, then again, maybe you can. Everyone else ignores the truth and lies like dogs so I take that statement back.
What did 'who' do in Georgia?

“Flying Spaghetti Monster”

Since: Nov 11

Stone County, Arkansas

#43 Feb 7, 2013
Bleeding heart yellow dog wrote:
<quoted text>
Dress it up however you like Bra. There's not going to be a compromise this time. Obama IS going to get mandatory registration of ALL firearms. Then, its all down hill from there. Like I said, we have plenty of examples of how to do this. Disarmament always begins with mandatory registration. We democrats ARE going to see it through this time now that we have a leader who isn't worried about the future of his wife's political career.
Obama and his supporters will face severe opposition to renewing the assault weapons ban that expired a few years back. They have no inclination to restrict ALL firearms and the proposition is absurd. Your rhetoric is boring and unproductive.

“Flying Spaghetti Monster”

Since: Nov 11

Stone County, Arkansas

#44 Feb 7, 2013
WhereIsAmerica wrote:
Would you volunteer to a screening of your DNA to determine if your bloodline is fitting to have a child brought into this world? That sentence sounds about as stupid as the question put before us. I can see that being discussed in a Progressive liberal society. Think about it, if we had to have that screening the deaths caused by guns could be avoided, plus many more crimes. I think this should be put in as an executive order and implemented immediately.
Our Progressive liberal government will take care of this and make sure no one has any rights after it is over with. Guns will be first and soon you will wake up and wonder why you are not able to post your opinion on the internet, why you have no books in the library to read (but what they want you to read),why you are not allowed to travel the roads freely, why you no longer can cast a ballot! The decay of our country is at hand and if we don't stand up now we will be the minions who let it happen. They have a motive, they have a plan. The plan is to quite the people! Our world will never be warm, fuzzy, and safe as the Progressives lead you to believe.
I'm thinking your also not in favor of one world government.[sarcasm]

“Flying Spaghetti Monster”

Since: Nov 11

Stone County, Arkansas

#45 Feb 7, 2013
Fried Horse wrote:
I would not want to submit to a mental health screening, in order to purchase a gun.
We gun owners must protect our right, by being reasonable. The more zealous in the gun lobby seem to be taking the all or nothing approach. The problem with that, is that when you hold out for all, you run the risk of getting nothing.
Literally, if you read the Second Amendment, you can see how easily gun ownership could be taken away with a simple reinterpretation, by the Supreme Court. Folks love the part of the Second Amendment, after the comma. The tricky part, is what comes before the comma. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,..." Think about what that means.
What exactly makes you reluctant to a mental health screening? If you're of sound mind the interview should not be problematic.

The intransigence of the gun lobby is not a redeeming quality in this debate. I believe they are making a BIG mistake in their unwillingness to cooperate towards a solution to deadly crime in America.

That sentence and comma you referenced in our Constitution has been a source of debate for many, many years.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mountain View Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Poll Did you vote today? (Jun '10) 20 min Andy 39,482
question 1 hr jer 22
dycus 7 hr Hmm 11
Banned from Topix (Oct '13) Sun meme 39
kayla stewart miller Sun shuu 13
alex from washington Sat Kara 5
Good Church to go to? (Feb '16) Sep 23 eva 12

Mountain View Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Mountain View Mortgages