United States & Gun Control discussion.

[Th3 Maelstr0m]

• What, if any new laws are acceptable at the federal level?
• What can be done to strengthen the current system both in your state or on the federal level?

• I think a case can be made for background checks of firearm purchases both from FFL's and private sales. I also think it could be argued that that lies within the bounds of the 2nd Amendment, which should be our main concern. However, I am hesitant to give full support for such a measure because
  1. The number of criminals this would deter seems likely to approach zero
  2. While it may prevent some mentally unstable people from being firearms legally (though it wouldn't stop them from getting the illegally), I fear the parameters for determining who is "mentally fit" to own a firearm might be exploited. We already see politicians stretch the 2nd Amendment to the point of oblivion to further their agenda, so I can only imagine what they would do to whatever guidelines would be given. How many veterans would be denied the right to buy a gun b/c they have PTSD?
  3. I haven't had the opportunity to research the effectiveness this may have, so until I do I don't feel comfortable recommending it whole heartedly, but I think it's worth discussing and debating.

• I do believe that to strengthen our current system the focus needs to be taken off gun ownership and focused in on combating environments that give rise to violent behavior. So we should be looking at our education system, familial situations, poverty, and perhaps changing how we address drugs. Unfortunately, a lot of this would probably entail the government to relax regulations, and I don't see that happening.

Ideally all this stuff would happen at the State level, where it belongs. This would allow them to tailor their approach based on their own needs and circumstances, as well as making it easier for other States to compare and contrast and recalibrate as they see fit.

 

[Marine0311]

There was a bill in Congress about 2 years ago that has something about anyone with PTSD would be denied a firearm, or somewhow it would be made tough to obtain one. I don't know the name of the bill or the specific language however the NRA and veterans groups latched onto it as an attack on veterans and their gun rights. I know because I get a number of mass e-mails. The bill died and I'm glad it did.

Yes I want to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people however I am not sure, and I am torn in my heart about the issue of veterans with PTSD not having the ability to own or carry firearms.

EDIT: It was this http://rense.com/general78/vett.htm

Of course at first glance, if you read the whole article, you can see how it was painted.

 

[Th3 Maelstr0m]

Here is a great site to refer someone to if they are concerned or confused about "assault weapons" and "high-capacity" magazines:

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

 

[Casimir]

Chop: I know it was Bush, my point is that there's precedence.

Dknob: yes, I think there is a possibility something could be manufactured and justified to work on a national level. Perhaps not simultaneously, but the end result ultimately being national.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Well I am a veteran, I have PTSD and if anyone thinks I am going hand over my guns…well it just isn’t going to happen. You want to stop me from buying guns or ammo? FUCK YOU! My business depends on my ability to buy guns and ammo, just like many other vets who also have PTSD. I mean really, you want to strip my rights to self protection, destroy my small business and put me and my family on the street because I have PTSD? And you think I will go along with that?

I know several dudes who deployed with PTSD to include myself (i.e. carried an Army issue M4, representing the United States government). And I can’t buy one now? Fuck that, fuck anyone who thinks that way, fuck anyone who could justify that in their mind, those motherfuckers are the ones who shouldn’t own guns….leave everyone else the fuck alone (especially the vets).

 

[AWP]

Like I posted somewhere earlier, bringing doctors into the process is a bad, bad idea. If a doc thinks you shouldn't have a weapon, does he/ she report it? What criteria are they bound by and how subjective is it? Degrading HIPAA to allow the reporting of mental health issues so your information can be reported to the Feds and what criteria will they use to determine if your mental status allows you to possess a weapon?

Think of the arguments had every time a DSM version is created and that's by mental health professionals...now we're going to involve them (presumably) with politicians to determine the boundaries? PTSD is an anxiety disorder, but anxiety disorders can present as being manic depressive (bi polar). Any mental illness or issue can be managed and the person a productive member of society and some cannot, so how do we draw the line? A gut call by a doc who might be anti-gun? Some type of review board to assess you? Consider anyone with a specific condition to have their rights taken away, no matter how slight that condition may be?

I know some of those are extreme cases, but seriously...this proposal takes us down a path with some profound consequences.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

There is huge difference between having depression, having heightened alert, standoffish, or anxiety and being criminally insane, homicidal, etc. My issue with a “board” is that most doctors will not step on other doctors toes regarding diagnoses, and or re-diagnoses. Also, with everything, there is going to be a doctor who will lead the board, and that doctor will hold all the cards regarding who and how his opinion is agreed or disagreed with. Furthermore, doctors are not legal rights professionals, they are medical professionals. A doctor has no business determining if someone should or should not maintain their constitutional rights. That is for a court to decide, a judge and a jury, etc.

Fear mongering by all types leads to this kind of crap, “veterans are trained killers, and suffer from X-Y-Z and should not be trusted with guns” is fucking ridicules. Unless that veteran has done something to bring his sanity into question, why would we punish him/her at all? Where is his/her due process? The issue of mental health, as it is being brought forth, has little to do with the 2nd Amendment and much more to do with the 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9th amendments. In other words, it stomps all over most of your rights.

Personally, I think it is disgusting that anyone would expect a person to put a uniform, carry a weapon in the defense of freedom and then strip that veterans rights as they return home, because they are now afraid of them. Fucking cowards.

This is why I do not support any gun control. Where does it end? Regardless if laws are passed to restrict me from possessing a firearm, do you really believe I would not possess one? The laws will do nothing but take me, a law abiding citizen and turn me into a criminal. Forcing me to pick a side, and with my personal experiences of seeing the evil in the world, forcing me to pick the wrong side.

Gun control affects law abiding citizens, not the criminal element. Don’t want crazy people to have guns? How you going to stop it? Make a law? They are fucking crazy, they are not going to follow them. “Oh at least they can’t buy them in a store” so now you take that person and tell them to go buy it off the street, making the crack dealers and gangster more money?

This whole argument of gun control is really fucking retarded. STOP expecting someone else to protect you from evil, and take responsibility for yourself. When you do that, it doesn’t matter who has a gun, what that persons mental state is, or if they are abiding by the law or not.

 

[Marauder06]

A doctor has no business determining if someone should or should not maintain their constitutional rights. That is for a court to decide, a judge and a jury, etc.

 

[JBS]

We're all talking to ourselves somewhat. The people who voted for our leaders don't give a crap about any of this.

They get their check, their Obama phone, their benefits, their trinket stones and the rest of the country can just go to hell. They really could not be bothered to give a crap in the least about the country, debt, the future, let alone gun rights. I mean show me a prominent Liberal Progressive opinion piece on the subject of unmanageable debt. Show me a Liberal Progressive concerned with the ability of our nation to handle our debt. It's not even a concern, like they don't know where money comes from...

Especially in urban areas, all that matters is access to Starbucks, good television programming, and the rest of the comfort bubble. Otherwise they can't be troubled with such things. Gun rights? Lol, what are those even for? That's redneck talk.

How do you get these issues to become important to smug Liberals with infinite faith in the government?

 

[Karoshi]

Chop: I know it was Bush, my point is that there's precedence.

Dknob: yes, I think there is a possibility something could be manufactured and justified to work on a national level. Perhaps not simultaneously, but the end result ultimately being national.

Wasn't it actually then Police Superintendent Eddie Compass and Mayor Ray Nagin who authorized the seizures? The same Ray Nagin who was just indicted on 21 federal corruption charges?

 

[Scotth]

Get this blunder by New York in there rush to pass a gun law.

Due to slight oversight in New York’s new gun law, both police and private citizens will be banned from carrying high-capacity magazines.
According to TV station WABC, the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, which bans magazines that carry more than seven rounds, does not provide an exemption for law enforcement officers, who typically carry handguns with a 15-round capacity.
The New York Patrolman's Benevolent Association President Patrick J. Lynch said in a press release Thursday that they are "actively working to enact changes to this law that will provide the appropriate exemptions from the law for active and retired law enforcement officers."
"As with many pieces of new legislation, there is a period shortly after enactment where omissions and unforeseen impacts become apparent that prompt a revision to the law," he said.
The law takes effect in March. The bill can be read here.

http://news.msn.com/politics/oops-nys-new-gun-law-restricts-police-officers

Everyone of the idiots that passed that law should be forced to wear clown shoes.

I can't wait for this law to work it way through the courts.

 

[Chopstick]

AAAAAANNNNNND I just got a response from Senator Casey.

Dear Mrs. Chopstick:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about the tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. I appreciate hearing from you about this issue.

As you know, on December 14, 2012, an individual in Newtown, Connecticut forced his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School and opened fire on teachers and staff in the building. In total, the perpetrator murdered 20 students between the ages of six and seven years old, as well as six adults, many of whom heroically sought to stop the shooter and save the lives of children. Like many Americans, I was deeply affected by the scope and brutality of this act. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.

The motives that led to this senseless massacre will likely never fully be comprehended. However, I believe that all public officials have a responsibility to work to prevent such an event from occurring again. This incident reflects a complex problem that requires a comprehensive strategy, including funding for law enforcement officers and the mental health care system. Too many individuals with mental illness are not receiving the services they need and tragically, sometimes a small number of these individuals turn violent. I have supported access to affordable and accessible mental health services for all Americans and I will continue to review proposed solutions to improve our mental health system.

As you may know, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. Pennsylvania has a fine hunting and sporting tradition, and I will defend the right to bear arms as it is enshrined in our Constitution. However, I also believe that the attack at Sandy Hook Elementary School highlights very serious dangers posed to public safety by the misuse of certain weapons and technology originally developed for warfare. According to reports, the shooter was able to kill many children and adults very quickly because he possessed a military-style semiautomatic weapon. He also allegedly used magazines containing up to 30 rounds of ammunition and carried hundreds of rounds more. After much reflection and careful study of the issue, I have decided to support a federal assault weapons ban as well as legislation restricting high capacity clips. In light of what occurred at Sandy Hook, these are two measures that will lessen the chances that this will happen again soon.

Our Nation has already begun a critical dialogue as we examine what steps must be taken to prevent this type of tragedy in the future. On December 19, 2012, President Obama announced the formation of an inter-agency task initiative, led by Vice President Biden, to study these issues and recommend possible actions. I look forward to reviewing these proposals, as well to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address this complex issue.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.

For more information on this or other issues, I encourage you to visit my website, http://casey.senate.gov. I hope you will find this online office a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.

Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator

P.S. If you would like to respond to this message, please use the contact form on my website: http://casey.senate.gov/contact/

 

[policemedic]

Casey is an ass. He needs to learn--as do most politicians--that his opinion is basically irrelevant. He is there to vote as the majority of his constituents tell him to.

 

[Chopstick]

Casey is an ass. He needs to learn--as do most politicians--that his opinion is basically irrelevant. He is there to vote as the majority of his constituents tell him to.

I agree with you. I said in my letter I was concerned with infringement of 2nd Amendment rights. And this is the wishy washy crap he sends back.. Didnt vote for him...wont vote for him.

 

[policemedic]

I'm waiting for responses from him...I expect I'll get the same, or just ignored...:-"

 

[Chopstick]

I'm waiting for responses from him...I expect I'll get the same, or just ignored...:-"

LOL..I cant recall exactly what day I emailed and Im too lazy to go look through my mail but Im sure he will get to you..eventually. Actually Im surprised that my side of the state got an answer first!

 

[Marine0311]

Fox News poll: Twice as many favor more guns over banning guns to reduce crime

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ore-guns-over-banning-guns-to-reduce-violent/

Nearly twice as many voters say there would be less violent crime if more law-abiding Americans owned guns, than if guns were banned.
In addition, while American voters generally favor strengthening gun laws, 71 percent do not think tougher laws can stop shootings like the one last month in Newtown, Connecticut. Some 22 percent say new laws can prevent the next Sandy Hook.
These are just some of the findings from a Fox News poll released Friday.
Click here for full poll results.
Majorities of gun owners (81 percent), non-gun owners (58 percent), Democrats (58 percent), independents (72 percent) and Republicans (85 percent) say the people who do these kinds of things “will always find the guns” to commit violent acts.

 

[Marauder06]

I do NOT know if this story is true or not.


On Thursday, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful.

They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness. The following is a portion of the transcript:

"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good &evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.

"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.
"In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy -- it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best.

Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You've stripped away our heritage,
You've outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question "Why?"
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!

"Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact.
What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs -- politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws.
Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

"As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him.

To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA -- I give to you a sincere challenge.. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone!

My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!"
- Darrell Scott

 

[CDG]

post

All well and good, but you degrade your credibility by bringing god and religion into an issue like this. The issue is about better mental health screening and not infringing on the 2nd Amendment. "Finding god" is irrelevant.

 

[Marauder06]

Whose credibility is degraded? It is the opinion of the grieving father of a murder victim (if this is even true).