• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

The Gun Law Discussion

ElasticNinja said:
In Ireland guns are required to be kept in locked gun cases, I think that is pretty reasonable. Would help prevent kids and criminals getting access to them anyhow.
Click to expand...

What one person sees as reasonable another sees as putting people in danger. If all of my guns were locked up and someone broke into my house I would have no chance of getting my firearm to protect my family.

The smarter thing to do is to lock them all up when no one is home to prevent criminals from getting them, and educate your children properly about firearms so accidents don't happen when people are home.

Again, this comes down to being responsible adults and not needing the government to regulate every single aspect of our lives. What happens in my house is no one else's business including the government.
 
the fact remains that its prescribed by doctors as a psychotropic drug...... as defined by the government (the ONLY definition that matters).... its on the list of psychotropic drugs even in your state....... and some states are already stripping guns and rights from anyone who has taken psychotropic drugs.... and the Feds want to do the same

not really sure why youre trying to strawman with 'opiates and narcotics' to even further confuse the discussion

we are talking about psychotropic drugs..... a totally different category of drugs.... and a category the government is using to strip gun rights

maybe it would help to clarify the problem by first defining psychotropic...... its not just for crazy people.... its also for people who cant sleep (such as Benadryl, a drug commonly prescribed as a sleep agent)..... or who have ADHD........ or people afraid of flying.... or someone who has OCD.... and this list goes on

Psychotropic | Define Psychotropic at Dictionary.com

it doesnt require "magical thinking" to understand that if the government creates a list of psychotropic drugs (which they have)..... and Benadryl is on that list (which it is)...... and they then create a law that says you can lose gun rights for taking psychotropic drugs (which some states have, and the feds are trying to do) ...... the taking Benadryl.... for any reason.... even allergies.... can get you stripped of your guns and rights
 
chrlswltrs said:
We do still have a chance because the majority of our military would never follow orders to turn against the people. :laugh::rofl:
Click to expand...

I am absolutely NOT convinced this is true. People can be intimidated and soldiers are no different. Sorry, but for some reason, I just do not agree.
 
I read a few things on this when it was first brought up...... statistics say the majority of soldiers will kill americans

as I recall numerous studies were done on the human condition...... and something like 60%-65% of subordinates will do ANYTHING they are told to do by someone who they perceive has authority over them.... even if they personally believe what they are doing is wrong

of course these studies were done when there was a different mentality in americans....... and people actually had morals etc............ I would have to believe that percentage is much higher given the mentality of the generations that are serving now

of course as it pertains to this discussion it really doesnt matter if 100% of soldiers will kill americans if told to.... 100% of soldiers will kill the enemy if told to .... and they are continiously getting their collective arses kicked by cave dwellers with antique weaponry in the desert as we speak

it has always made me wonder a bit about the argument that the scarey squirrel gun crowd uses........ that being we dont need guns for self defense because we couldnt possibly defeat the government anyhow.......... if thats the case..... then you have nothing to fear by us having our dreams and weapons
 
This is the criteria that Texas effectively uses to determine whether someone is too ill to hold a CHL...I think it might work as criteria for owning a firearm (for background checks) on a federal level. Problem is enforcement...it would discourage people from getting help and force them to choose between owning a gun and getting healthy...

d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(7), a person is incapable of
exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of
a handgun if the person:

(1) has been diagnosed by a licensed physician as suffering from a
psychiatric disorder or condition that causes or is likely to cause
substantial impairment in judgment, mood, perception, impulse control, or
intellectual ability;

(2) suffers from a psychiatric disorder or condition described by
Subdivision (1) that:

(A)
is in remission but is reasonably

likely to redevelop at a future
time; or

(B)
requires continuous medical treatment to avoid redevelopment;

(3) has been diagnosed by a licensed physician, determined by a
review board or similar authority, or declared by a court to be incompetent
to manage the person's own affairs; or

(4) has entered in a criminal proceeding a plea of not guilty by reason
of insanity.

(e) The following constitutes evidence that a person has a psychiatric
disorder or condition described by Subsection (d)(1):

(1)
involuntary psychiatric hospitalization;

(2)
psychiatric hospitalization;

(3)
inpatient or residential substance abuse treatment in the
preceding five year period;

(4)
diagnosis in the preceding five
year period by a licensed
physician that the person is dependent on alcohol, a controlled substance,
or a similar substance; or

(5)
diagnosis at any time by a l icensed physician that the person
suffers or has suffered from a psychiatric disorder or condition consisting
of or relating to:

(A)
schizophrenia or delusional disorder;

(B)
bipolar disorder;

(C)

chronic dementia, whether caused by illness, brain defect, or
brain injury;


(D)

dissociative identity disorder;

(E)
intermittent explosive disorder; or

(F)
antisocial personality disorder.

(f) Notwithstanding Subsection (d), a person who has previously been
diagnosed

as suffering from a psychiatric disorder or condition described
by Subsection (d) or listed in Subsection (e) is not because of that
disorder or condition incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect
to the proper use and storage of a handgun if the person provides the
department with a certificate from a licensed physician whose primary
practice is in the field of psychiatry stating that the psychiatric disorder or
condition is in remission and is not reasonably likely to develop at a future
time.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/internetforms/forms/chl-16.pdf
 
JohnLaird said:
Problem is enforcement...it would discourage people from getting help and force them to choose between owning a gun and getting healthy...
Click to expand...
Yep. It's just another loophole.

This nation's mental health system is seriously flawed and rife with "double dipping" with cops and lawyers getting paid to make it a criminal offense and physicians getting paid to make it a disease. Obviously if it's one it can't be the other.

This corruption of the system needs to be addressed as a greater issue, and not as part of some gun law.

If Americans really want to see the chain of destruction end, then they'll have to go much further than quick 'n' dirty kludges.
 
I've been reading about some of the amendments that are likely to be included with the background check bill. From what I understand this might actually turn out being a good thing. Here is why:

1. "Universal background checks" will not change anything. You already have to do a background check to buy a gun in a store, online, and at 95% of gun show purchases. As written there is a exception for giving a gun to a family member (spouse, sibling, child, parent, etc) which was the biggest concern of gun owners when the talk of "UBCs" started.

2. There is an amendment for "Universal Reciprocity" which is HUGE. This would allow me to carry my handgun in any state that I travel too as long as my Concealed Pistol License is valid in my home state. This would also allow people to get a non resident license in a state that offers one (Utah or Oregon for example) so that they can carry a pistol in their home state, when their home state won't issue one (NY, CA, IL, etc)

3. There is an amendment that criminalizes any attempt to use background checks to create a national gun registry and carries a 15 yr prison sentence.

I am still wary of what the final bill will look like, especially with idiots like Feinstein in the Senate. But the title of "Universal Background Checks" will make the democrats happy without doing too much harm (or really accomplishing anything) and the amendments currently could actually be a step forward toward making everyone safer. We will have to see how this progresses in the coming days.
 
Big win for Americans today!!!!!

We didn't get National reciprocity, which is REALLY needed, but we didn't have our rights further eroded either!
 
Only a battle won. It looks like the backers of the "neo-'80's" gun laws are back at full throttle again today. And it's not even 8AM where I am.
 
ItnStln511 said:
It's a never ending mission for them.
Click to expand...
I don't know who "them" is in this case. This latest movement seems to have been organized by the MSNBC talk show hosts, and was quickly picked up by Democratic politicians. But I can't say whose idea it was to push so vehemently the exact same bullet points that typified the anti-gun rhetoric from 29-31 years ago. Back then I was on the cusp of turning 21, and only wanted to be able to go to the range and do some target shooting, like I had done with my dad until the state of Illinois had outlawed that sometime in the '70s. (My dad died in 1977, so it had to have been several years before that date.)

I have heard the carriers of this torch say that "this time" they're not going to stop until they get their way. Well, those are fighting words when their agenda is nothing better than what failed in the '80s, and mighty hypocritical coming from people who criticize reactionary politicians for "wanting it to be like the '50s".

After seeing the rise in senseless shootings in the US in general, and Chicago in particular, I am willing to make major concessions to the anti-gun lobby, but if and only if those concessions actually work towards solving the actual problem. Needless to say, their current bill of goods just doesn't pass muster with me. I think it's a real shame that they are unwilling to negotiate, or to even educate themselves about firearm basics, like the difference between a clip and a magazine. As long as they continue the tack of "all or nothing" coupled with proposals that are highly arbitrary half-measures that come from a position of ignorance, it will then be nothing for them.
 
chrlswltrs said:
I am still wary of what the final bill will look like, especially with idiots like Feinstein in the Senate. But the title of "Universal Background Checks" will make the democrats happy without doing too much harm (or really accomplishing anything) and the amendments currently could actually be a step forward toward making everyone safer. We will have to see how this progresses in the coming days.
Click to expand...

My view is the dems will not stop there. Those that hate guns will never stop. We will have more rules, laws and regs proposed that will sound reasonable at the time to many uneducated people, but will only further erode our absolute right to keep and bear arms.

There will be another school shooting and that will further the anti-gun agenda.

We need to get rid of most gun laws, rules and regs. They do little to no good. A local talking head proposed making more gun free zones. He was asked about the schools that are already GF zones and what good did that do. No answers forthcoming.
 
OK, I'll be the bad guy and say it.

School shootings and gun violence is largely not the fault of the gun and gun owner, rather, it is the fault of irresponsible parents and crappy kids. Perhaps we need to repeal all gun laws and start looking at holding parents of bad kids responsible for these shootings?

If a child is bullied by another (something we will never, ever solve) kid, part of the blame should be placed upon the bully, too. Blame the victim? You betcha, to some degree.

Do kids deserve to die because they peater others? HECK NO, not what I am saying.
 
Mass shootings will never be reduced until we get rid of defenseless victim zones. It sickens me that I am forced to put my child in such an unsafe environment everyday!
 
The thing is...both Columbine and Sandy Hook were murder/suicides. I can't help but wonder if the shooters did what they did just so that they would not be forgotten after they committed suicide...and so they would not have to die alone. Very similar to a suicide bomber. In both cases the shooters got what they really wanted...attention-via mass media coverage and the internet. Maybe that is part of the reason for all of these shootings...because 20-30 years ago the world was a lot bigger...news took a lot more time to get out. You couldn't shoot a bunch of people and expect it to be splattered all over twitter, facebook, etc within an hour after you offed yourself. You would have been forgotten after a while...maybe the relatives of the people you killed would stop to piss on your grave but that is all the attention you would ever get.
 
JohnLaird said:
The thing is...both Columbine and Sandy Hook were murder/suicides. I can't help but wonder if the shooters did what they did just so that they would not be forgotten after they committed suicide...and so they would not have to die alone. Very similar to a suicide bomber. In both cases the shooters got what they really wanted...attention-via mass media coverage and the internet. Maybe that is part of the reason for all of these shootings...because 20-30 years ago the world was a lot bigger...news took a lot more time to get out. You couldn't shoot a bunch of people and expect it to be splattered all over twitter, facebook, etc within an hour after you offed yourself. You would have been forgotten after a while...maybe the relatives of the people you killed would stop to piss on your grave but that is all the attention you would ever get.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that is why every mass shooting in the last 50 years except one has taken place in a defenseless victim zone ("gun free" zone). Plenty of time to run up the body count before anyone shows up that has a chance to stop them.
 
Speed Daemon said:
I don't know who "them" is in this case. This latest movement seems to have been organized by the MSNBC talk show hosts, and was quickly picked up by Democratic politicians. But I can't say whose idea it was to push so vehemently the exact same bullet points that typified the anti-gun rhetoric from 29-31 years ago. Back then I was on the cusp of turning 21, and only wanted to be able to go to the range and do some target shooting, like I had done with my dad until the state of Illinois had outlawed that sometime in the '70s. (My dad died in 1977, so it had to have been several years before that date.)

I have heard the carriers of this torch say that "this time" they're not going to stop until they get their way. Well, those are fighting words when their agenda is nothing better than what failed in the '80s, and mighty hypocritical coming from people who criticize reactionary politicians for "wanting it to be like the '50s".

After seeing the rise in senseless shootings in the US in general, and Chicago in particular, I am willing to make major concessions to the anti-gun lobby, but if and only if those concessions actually work towards solving the actual problem. Needless to say, their current bill of goods just doesn't pass muster with me. I think it's a real shame that they are unwilling to negotiate, or to even educate themselves about firearm basics, like the difference between a clip and a magazine. As long as they continue the tack of "all or nothing" coupled with proposals that are highly arbitrary half-measures that come from a position of ignorance, it will then be nothing for them.
Click to expand...

"Them " would be the anti-gun left.





Bob Maxey said:
My view is the dems will not stop there. Those that hate guns will never stop. We will have more rules, laws and regs proposed that will sound reasonable at the time to many uneducated people, but will only further erode our absolute right to keep and bear arms.

There will be another school shooting and that will further the anti-gun agenda.

We need to get rid of most gun laws, rules and regs. They do little to no good. A local talking head proposed making more gun free zones. He was asked about the schools that are already GF zones and what good did that do. No answers forthcoming.
Click to expand...

Sadly I think you're right. They won't stop until they get what they want. I'm just glad they haven't gotten what they want so far.
 
I guarantee that no one in MA is thinking "I sure am glad I don't have a dangerous semi automatic rifle and ammo right now" while the terrorist that bombed the Boston Marathon is running loose and police, FBI, and the national guard can't find him even going door to door.

Police won't face him without body armor and automatic rifles, but the POS POTUS still wants to take our guns away after the Senate actually listened to the people they represent and voted against new gun control legislation.
 
chrlswltrs said:
I guarantee that no one in MA is thinking "I sure am glad I don't have a dangerous semi automatic rifle and ammo right now" while the terrorist that bombed the Boston Marathon is running loose and police, FBI, and the national guard can't find him even going door to door.

Police won't face him without body armor and automatic rifles, but the POS POTUS still wants to take our guns away after the Senate actually listened to the people they represent and voted against new gun control legislation.
Click to expand...

I couldn't have said it better myself!
 
Speaking as a person on bail and charged with Attempted Murder, facing a jury in the High Court Glasgow in June, my "Special Defence" being Self Defence..
Im glad it wasnt a gun in my hand or the other guy would be dead right now.
Im glad i didnt have that kind of power in my hand!

What if the other guy had had a gun?........ he WOULDNT have one because theyre illegal here! Only gangsters have them here and they only shoot other gangsters (people living the same life as them for the same gains and risks).

This is why i think i can say that a country is safer without legal guns. (And i live in one of the most violent cities in western europe so im not in some fairytail)
Peace :)
 
funkylogik said:
Speaking as a person on bail and charged with Attempted Murder, facing a jury in the High Court Glasgow in June, my "Special Defence" being Self Defence..
Im glad it wasnt a gun in my hand or the other guy would be dead right now.
Im glad i didnt have that kind of power in my hand!

What if the other guy had had a gun?........ he WOULDNT have one because theyre illegal here! Only gangsters have them here and they only shoot other gangsters (people living the same life as them for the same gains and risks).

This is why i think i can say that a country is safer without legal guns. (And i live in one of the most violent cities in western europe so im not in some fairytail)
Peace :)
Click to expand...

I don't know what your situation is, every situation is different. If more people were armed in your country, there would be less crime though. When someone thinks about committing a crime they have to think twice when the person they are about to assault, rob, whatever might be armed.

Personally, if someone broke into my house or tried to attack my family anywhere I would not be able to live with myself if I didn't have the ability to protect them by all means up to and including deadly force.

I wouldn't be able to live with myself if my family was out watching a movie and some nut job came in shooting everyone and the was nothing I could do to protect my family and everyone else in the theater.

I just choose to not be a victim to anyone!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom