Democrats Need to Drop the Gun-Control Issue

[Auld Phart]

I recently changed my stance on gun-control. I think it's a dead-end and only harms the Democratic Party.

Dems can't win on gun control because their proposals are beyond stupid! Heaping gun control laws onto already law abiding gun owners accomplishes none of the gun control objectives. Meanwhile the criminals and mentally ill IGNORE gun control laws. This is why law abiding gun owners tell gun control advocates to fuck off!

Meanwhile, 1 in 6 ADULTS are diagnosed with mental illness in this country. Many of them own guns, I suspect.

"Mental illnesses are common in the United States. Nearly one in five U.S. adults live with a mental illness (51.5 million in 2019). Mental illnesses include many different conditions that vary in degree of severity, ranging from mild to moderate to severe."

Mental Illness

An overview of statistics for mental illnesses. Mental illnesses are common in the United States. One in six U.S. adults lives with a mental illness (43.4 million in 2015). Mental illnesses include many different conditions that vary in degree of severity, ranging from mild to moderate to severe.

www.nimh.nih.gov

Or just druggies and alcoholics can go on a shooting spree or kill a spouse. I made the point when we first got married, no guns in the house.

If someone is a stalker, with a restraining order - can't infringe on his rights to get a gun.

If someone is mentally ill - can't infringe on his rights either.

Someone here had no problem with little kids having guns.

This is nuts.

No.....you idiot....the guns were locked up in their home....locked up....not sitting on the drive way.

If someone is a stalker, if the police can't deal with them, that is on you shitheads...meanwhile, you prevent the women from being able to get a gun to stop the stalker.......

And the mentally ill? You are an idiot...we already have laws that allow us to commit people who are dangerous to themselves or others......that also allows us to take their guns...we have those already......you just want to be able to classify normal gun owners as crazy so you can just take their guns...

Everyone wants to stop dangerous people from getting guns. The hot new policy option before this committee is Red Flag laws, which take away the guns of people deemed dangerous to themselves or others. But there is a much more effective alternative already in place.

They are known as Baker Act statutes (Pennsylvania’s is called the “Mental Health Procedures Act”), and have been around since the early 1970s. They allow police, doctors and family members to have someone typically held in most states for a 72-hour mental health examination based upon a simple reasonableness test – little more than a guess or a hunch. The hold in Pennsylvania is up to 120 hours.



These laws focus on mental illness, and they require that the individual be evaluated by mental-health-care experts. If a person can’t afford a lawyer, a public defender is provided. While judges can involuntarily commit an individual they believe is a danger to themselves or others, there is a range of options they can take, with the threat that other options can be followed up with involuntary commitment.

However, instead of using these laws, 17 states have now adopted Red Flag laws, with 13 states passing them since the shootings at the high school in Parkland, Fla. While Red Flag laws are often discussed in terms of mental illness and they are frequently used in connection with concerns about suicide, only one state’s law even mentions mental illness and none of the states requires that a mental-health expert be involved in evaluating the person.

And, unlike Baker Act statutes, these new laws don’t offer safeguards, such as providing a public defender for individuals who can’t afford a lawyer or covering their legal costs. When faced with legal bills that can easily amount to $10,000 for a hearing, few think that owning a gun justifies these costs.

John Lott: We don’t need Red Flag laws – we have the tools in place to help the mentally ill and protect people’s rights

Baker Act statutes are a better alternative. They require an evaluation by a mental-health expert and a public defender is provided if needed.

broadandliberty.com

Who's preventing the woman from getting a gun to deal with the stalker?

And why should she have to live in fear, always afraid he might be coming at her with a fire arm? Just so he can "have his right"? Ya, I know - more guns is the answer.

Who's preventing the woman from getting a gun to deal with the stalker?

extended waiting periods

 

[Auld Phart]

 

[Coyote]

I recently changed my stance on gun-control. I think it's a dead-end and only harms the Democratic Party.

Dems can't win on gun control because their proposals are beyond stupid! Heaping gun control laws onto already law abiding gun owners accomplishes none of the gun control objectives. Meanwhile the criminals and mentally ill IGNORE gun control laws. This is why law abiding gun owners tell gun control advocates to fuck off!

Meanwhile, 1 in 6 ADULTS are diagnosed with mental illness in this country. Many of them own guns, I suspect.

"Mental illnesses are common in the United States. Nearly one in five U.S. adults live with a mental illness (51.5 million in 2019). Mental illnesses include many different conditions that vary in degree of severity, ranging from mild to moderate to severe."

Mental Illness

An overview of statistics for mental illnesses. Mental illnesses are common in the United States. One in six U.S. adults lives with a mental illness (43.4 million in 2015). Mental illnesses include many different conditions that vary in degree of severity, ranging from mild to moderate to severe.

www.nimh.nih.gov

Or just druggies and alcoholics can go on a shooting spree or kill a spouse. I made the point when we first got married, no guns in the house.

If someone is a stalker, with a restraining order - can't infringe on his rights to get a gun.

If someone is mentally ill - can't infringe on his rights either.

Someone here had no problem with little kids having guns.

This is nuts.

No.....you idiot....the guns were locked up in their home....locked up....not sitting on the drive way.

If someone is a stalker, if the police can't deal with them, that is on you shitheads...meanwhile, you prevent the women from being able to get a gun to stop the stalker.......

And the mentally ill? You are an idiot...we already have laws that allow us to commit people who are dangerous to themselves or others......that also allows us to take their guns...we have those already......you just want to be able to classify normal gun owners as crazy so you can just take their guns...

Everyone wants to stop dangerous people from getting guns. The hot new policy option before this committee is Red Flag laws, which take away the guns of people deemed dangerous to themselves or others. But there is a much more effective alternative already in place.

They are known as Baker Act statutes (Pennsylvania’s is called the “Mental Health Procedures Act”), and have been around since the early 1970s. They allow police, doctors and family members to have someone typically held in most states for a 72-hour mental health examination based upon a simple reasonableness test – little more than a guess or a hunch. The hold in Pennsylvania is up to 120 hours.



These laws focus on mental illness, and they require that the individual be evaluated by mental-health-care experts. If a person can’t afford a lawyer, a public defender is provided. While judges can involuntarily commit an individual they believe is a danger to themselves or others, there is a range of options they can take, with the threat that other options can be followed up with involuntary commitment.

However, instead of using these laws, 17 states have now adopted Red Flag laws, with 13 states passing them since the shootings at the high school in Parkland, Fla. While Red Flag laws are often discussed in terms of mental illness and they are frequently used in connection with concerns about suicide, only one state’s law even mentions mental illness and none of the states requires that a mental-health expert be involved in evaluating the person.

And, unlike Baker Act statutes, these new laws don’t offer safeguards, such as providing a public defender for individuals who can’t afford a lawyer or covering their legal costs. When faced with legal bills that can easily amount to $10,000 for a hearing, few think that owning a gun justifies these costs.

John Lott: We don’t need Red Flag laws – we have the tools in place to help the mentally ill and protect people’s rights

Baker Act statutes are a better alternative. They require an evaluation by a mental-health expert and a public defender is provided if needed.

broadandliberty.com

Who's preventing the woman from getting a gun to deal with the stalker?

And why should she have to live in fear, always afraid he might be coming at her with a fire arm? Just so he can "have his right"? Ya, I know - more guns is the answer.

Who's preventing the woman from getting a gun to deal with the stalker?

extended waiting periods

Then do away with that. Although...I understand the reasoning behind that one, it's suicide prevention in part.

But howabout not letting someone with a restraining order get a gun in the first place?

 

[Coyote]

View attachment 497484

So...if my religion requires me to have multiple wives (oh god the estrogen nightmare!) - and the law says no...my right is infringed upon yes?

 

[2aguy]

I recently changed my stance on gun-control. I think it's a dead-end and only harms the Democratic Party.

Dems can't win on gun control because their proposals are beyond stupid! Heaping gun control laws onto already law abiding gun owners accomplishes none of the gun control objectives. Meanwhile the criminals and mentally ill IGNORE gun control laws. This is why law abiding gun owners tell gun control advocates to fuck off!

Meanwhile, 1 in 6 ADULTS are diagnosed with mental illness in this country. Many of them own guns, I suspect.

"Mental illnesses are common in the United States. Nearly one in five U.S. adults live with a mental illness (51.5 million in 2019). Mental illnesses include many different conditions that vary in degree of severity, ranging from mild to moderate to severe."

Mental Illness

An overview of statistics for mental illnesses. Mental illnesses are common in the United States. One in six U.S. adults lives with a mental illness (43.4 million in 2015). Mental illnesses include many different conditions that vary in degree of severity, ranging from mild to moderate to severe.

www.nimh.nih.gov

Or just druggies and alcoholics can go on a shooting spree or kill a spouse. I made the point when we first got married, no guns in the house.

If someone is a stalker, with a restraining order - can't infringe on his rights to get a gun.

If someone is mentally ill - can't infringe on his rights either.

Someone here had no problem with little kids having guns.

This is nuts.

No.....you idiot....the guns were locked up in their home....locked up....not sitting on the drive way.

If someone is a stalker, if the police can't deal with them, that is on you shitheads...meanwhile, you prevent the women from being able to get a gun to stop the stalker.......

And the mentally ill? You are an idiot...we already have laws that allow us to commit people who are dangerous to themselves or others......that also allows us to take their guns...we have those already......you just want to be able to classify normal gun owners as crazy so you can just take their guns...

Everyone wants to stop dangerous people from getting guns. The hot new policy option before this committee is Red Flag laws, which take away the guns of people deemed dangerous to themselves or others. But there is a much more effective alternative already in place.

They are known as Baker Act statutes (Pennsylvania’s is called the “Mental Health Procedures Act”), and have been around since the early 1970s. They allow police, doctors and family members to have someone typically held in most states for a 72-hour mental health examination based upon a simple reasonableness test – little more than a guess or a hunch. The hold in Pennsylvania is up to 120 hours.



These laws focus on mental illness, and they require that the individual be evaluated by mental-health-care experts. If a person can’t afford a lawyer, a public defender is provided. While judges can involuntarily commit an individual they believe is a danger to themselves or others, there is a range of options they can take, with the threat that other options can be followed up with involuntary commitment.

However, instead of using these laws, 17 states have now adopted Red Flag laws, with 13 states passing them since the shootings at the high school in Parkland, Fla. While Red Flag laws are often discussed in terms of mental illness and they are frequently used in connection with concerns about suicide, only one state’s law even mentions mental illness and none of the states requires that a mental-health expert be involved in evaluating the person.

And, unlike Baker Act statutes, these new laws don’t offer safeguards, such as providing a public defender for individuals who can’t afford a lawyer or covering their legal costs. When faced with legal bills that can easily amount to $10,000 for a hearing, few think that owning a gun justifies these costs.

John Lott: We don’t need Red Flag laws – we have the tools in place to help the mentally ill and protect people’s rights

Baker Act statutes are a better alternative. They require an evaluation by a mental-health expert and a public defender is provided if needed.

broadandliberty.com

Who's preventing the woman from getting a gun to deal with the stalker?

And why should she have to live in fear, always afraid he might be coming at her with a fire arm? Just so he can "have his right"? Ya, I know - more guns is the answer.

Who's preventing the woman from getting a gun to deal with the stalker?

extended waiting periods

Then do away with that. Although...I understand the reasoning behind that one, it's suicide prevention in part.

But howabout not letting someone with a restraining order get a gun in the first place?

The police do that.....and then they get a gun illegally......or simply murder the woman with a 9 dollar hatchet from Walmart....

An Illinois man has been sentenced to life in prison for killing his estranged wife with a hatchet.

A judge on Wednesday sentenced 40-year-old Cristian Loga-Negru, of Arlington Heights, Illinois. The Journal Times of Racine reports Loga-Negru will be eligible for parole in 30 years.

Illinois man gets life in Wisconsin hatchet slaying of wife

An Illinois man has been sentenced to life in prison for killing his estranged wife with a hatchet.

www.wsaw.com

 

[Orangecat]

let them buy weapons till their wallets burst.

Do you even comprehend how stupid that statement is?

 

[2aguy]

I recently changed my stance on gun-control. I think it's a dead-end and only harms the Democratic Party.

Dems can't win on gun control because their proposals are beyond stupid! Heaping gun control laws onto already law abiding gun owners accomplishes none of the gun control objectives. Meanwhile the criminals and mentally ill IGNORE gun control laws. This is why law abiding gun owners tell gun control advocates to fuck off!

Meanwhile, 1 in 6 ADULTS are diagnosed with mental illness in this country. Many of them own guns, I suspect.

"Mental illnesses are common in the United States. Nearly one in five U.S. adults live with a mental illness (51.5 million in 2019). Mental illnesses include many different conditions that vary in degree of severity, ranging from mild to moderate to severe."

Mental Illness

An overview of statistics for mental illnesses. Mental illnesses are common in the United States. One in six U.S. adults lives with a mental illness (43.4 million in 2015). Mental illnesses include many different conditions that vary in degree of severity, ranging from mild to moderate to severe.

www.nimh.nih.gov

Or just druggies and alcoholics can go on a shooting spree or kill a spouse. I made the point when we first got married, no guns in the house.

If someone is a stalker, with a restraining order - can't infringe on his rights to get a gun.

If someone is mentally ill - can't infringe on his rights either.

Someone here had no problem with little kids having guns.

This is nuts.

No.....you idiot....the guns were locked up in their home....locked up....not sitting on the drive way.

If someone is a stalker, if the police can't deal with them, that is on you shitheads...meanwhile, you prevent the women from being able to get a gun to stop the stalker.......

And the mentally ill? You are an idiot...we already have laws that allow us to commit people who are dangerous to themselves or others......that also allows us to take their guns...we have those already......you just want to be able to classify normal gun owners as crazy so you can just take their guns...

Everyone wants to stop dangerous people from getting guns. The hot new policy option before this committee is Red Flag laws, which take away the guns of people deemed dangerous to themselves or others. But there is a much more effective alternative already in place.

They are known as Baker Act statutes (Pennsylvania’s is called the “Mental Health Procedures Act”), and have been around since the early 1970s. They allow police, doctors and family members to have someone typically held in most states for a 72-hour mental health examination based upon a simple reasonableness test – little more than a guess or a hunch. The hold in Pennsylvania is up to 120 hours.



These laws focus on mental illness, and they require that the individual be evaluated by mental-health-care experts. If a person can’t afford a lawyer, a public defender is provided. While judges can involuntarily commit an individual they believe is a danger to themselves or others, there is a range of options they can take, with the threat that other options can be followed up with involuntary commitment.

However, instead of using these laws, 17 states have now adopted Red Flag laws, with 13 states passing them since the shootings at the high school in Parkland, Fla. While Red Flag laws are often discussed in terms of mental illness and they are frequently used in connection with concerns about suicide, only one state’s law even mentions mental illness and none of the states requires that a mental-health expert be involved in evaluating the person.

And, unlike Baker Act statutes, these new laws don’t offer safeguards, such as providing a public defender for individuals who can’t afford a lawyer or covering their legal costs. When faced with legal bills that can easily amount to $10,000 for a hearing, few think that owning a gun justifies these costs.

John Lott: We don’t need Red Flag laws – we have the tools in place to help the mentally ill and protect people’s rights

Baker Act statutes are a better alternative. They require an evaluation by a mental-health expert and a public defender is provided if needed.

broadandliberty.com

Who's preventing the woman from getting a gun to deal with the stalker?

And why should she have to live in fear, always afraid he might be coming at her with a fire arm? Just so he can "have his right"? Ya, I know - more guns is the answer.

The government...

Carol Bowne knew her best shot at defending herself from a violent ex was a gun, and not a piece of paper. And it was paperwork that left her unprotected when Michael Eitel showed up at her New Jersey home last week and stabbed her to death, say Second Amendment advocates, who charge local police routinely sit on firearms applications they are supposed to rule on within 30 days.

Bowne, 39, had a restraining order against Eitel when he killed her in her driveway last Wednesday, but she was still waiting for Berlin Township Police Chief Leonard Check to approve the gun permit she had applied for on April 21. Tragically, she had gone to the township police department just two days before her death to check on the status of her languishing application. In another indication of her fear of Eitel, Bowne had recently installed surveillance cameras around her home, and the equipment recorded the 45-year-old ex-con attacking her as she arrived home and got out of her car.

'No one helped her': NJ woman murdered by ex while awaiting gun permit

The recent murder of a New Jersey woman by a jilted ex-boyfriend has prompted outrage over the current gun laws in the Garden State after it was learned that the victim’s permit application had been delayed.

www.foxnews.com

But....in truth......this is the outcome you want.......you and the other anti-gunners don't want that woman to have a gun in the first place, and really don't want her to be able to carry that gun in public...

So for you, her being killed by her ex is the preferred outcome....since you don't want her to have that gun and you don't want her to be able to carry that gun....

That is the truth.

 

[2aguy]

I recently changed my stance on gun-control. I think it's a dead-end and only harms the Democratic Party.

Dems can't win on gun control because their proposals are beyond stupid! Heaping gun control laws onto already law abiding gun owners accomplishes none of the gun control objectives. Meanwhile the criminals and mentally ill IGNORE gun control laws. This is why law abiding gun owners tell gun control advocates to fuck off!

Meanwhile, 1 in 6 ADULTS are diagnosed with mental illness in this country. Many of them own guns, I suspect.

"Mental illnesses are common in the United States. Nearly one in five U.S. adults live with a mental illness (51.5 million in 2019). Mental illnesses include many different conditions that vary in degree of severity, ranging from mild to moderate to severe."

Mental Illness

An overview of statistics for mental illnesses. Mental illnesses are common in the United States. One in six U.S. adults lives with a mental illness (43.4 million in 2015). Mental illnesses include many different conditions that vary in degree of severity, ranging from mild to moderate to severe.

www.nimh.nih.gov

Or just druggies and alcoholics can go on a shooting spree or kill a spouse. I made the point when we first got married, no guns in the house.

If someone is a stalker, with a restraining order - can't infringe on his rights to get a gun.

If someone is mentally ill - can't infringe on his rights either.

Someone here had no problem with little kids having guns.

This is nuts.

No.....you idiot....the guns were locked up in their home....locked up....not sitting on the drive way.

If someone is a stalker, if the police can't deal with them, that is on you shitheads...meanwhile, you prevent the women from being able to get a gun to stop the stalker.......

And the mentally ill? You are an idiot...we already have laws that allow us to commit people who are dangerous to themselves or others......that also allows us to take their guns...we have those already......you just want to be able to classify normal gun owners as crazy so you can just take their guns...

Everyone wants to stop dangerous people from getting guns. The hot new policy option before this committee is Red Flag laws, which take away the guns of people deemed dangerous to themselves or others. But there is a much more effective alternative already in place.

They are known as Baker Act statutes (Pennsylvania’s is called the “Mental Health Procedures Act”), and have been around since the early 1970s. They allow police, doctors and family members to have someone typically held in most states for a 72-hour mental health examination based upon a simple reasonableness test – little more than a guess or a hunch. The hold in Pennsylvania is up to 120 hours.



These laws focus on mental illness, and they require that the individual be evaluated by mental-health-care experts. If a person can’t afford a lawyer, a public defender is provided. While judges can involuntarily commit an individual they believe is a danger to themselves or others, there is a range of options they can take, with the threat that other options can be followed up with involuntary commitment.

However, instead of using these laws, 17 states have now adopted Red Flag laws, with 13 states passing them since the shootings at the high school in Parkland, Fla. While Red Flag laws are often discussed in terms of mental illness and they are frequently used in connection with concerns about suicide, only one state’s law even mentions mental illness and none of the states requires that a mental-health expert be involved in evaluating the person.

And, unlike Baker Act statutes, these new laws don’t offer safeguards, such as providing a public defender for individuals who can’t afford a lawyer or covering their legal costs. When faced with legal bills that can easily amount to $10,000 for a hearing, few think that owning a gun justifies these costs.

John Lott: We don’t need Red Flag laws – we have the tools in place to help the mentally ill and protect people’s rights

Baker Act statutes are a better alternative. They require an evaluation by a mental-health expert and a public defender is provided if needed.

broadandliberty.com

Who's preventing the woman from getting a gun to deal with the stalker?

And why should she have to live in fear, always afraid he might be coming at her with a fire arm? Just so he can "have his right"? Ya, I know - more guns is the answer.

Who's preventing the woman from getting a gun to deal with the stalker?

extended waiting periods

Or simple refusal to give her the permit.......

 

[Coyote]

I recently changed my stance on gun-control. I think it's a dead-end and only harms the Democratic Party.

Dems can't win on gun control because their proposals are beyond stupid! Heaping gun control laws onto already law abiding gun owners accomplishes none of the gun control objectives. Meanwhile the criminals and mentally ill IGNORE gun control laws. This is why law abiding gun owners tell gun control advocates to fuck off!

Meanwhile, 1 in 6 ADULTS are diagnosed with mental illness in this country. Many of them own guns, I suspect.

"Mental illnesses are common in the United States. Nearly one in five U.S. adults live with a mental illness (51.5 million in 2019). Mental illnesses include many different conditions that vary in degree of severity, ranging from mild to moderate to severe."

Mental Illness

An overview of statistics for mental illnesses. Mental illnesses are common in the United States. One in six U.S. adults lives with a mental illness (43.4 million in 2015). Mental illnesses include many different conditions that vary in degree of severity, ranging from mild to moderate to severe.

www.nimh.nih.gov

Or just druggies and alcoholics can go on a shooting spree or kill a spouse. I made the point when we first got married, no guns in the house.

If someone is a stalker, with a restraining order - can't infringe on his rights to get a gun.

If someone is mentally ill - can't infringe on his rights either.

Someone here had no problem with little kids having guns.

This is nuts.

No.....you idiot....the guns were locked up in their home....locked up....not sitting on the drive way.

If someone is a stalker, if the police can't deal with them, that is on you shitheads...meanwhile, you prevent the women from being able to get a gun to stop the stalker.......

And the mentally ill? You are an idiot...we already have laws that allow us to commit people who are dangerous to themselves or others......that also allows us to take their guns...we have those already......you just want to be able to classify normal gun owners as crazy so you can just take their guns...

Everyone wants to stop dangerous people from getting guns. The hot new policy option before this committee is Red Flag laws, which take away the guns of people deemed dangerous to themselves or others. But there is a much more effective alternative already in place.

They are known as Baker Act statutes (Pennsylvania’s is called the “Mental Health Procedures Act”), and have been around since the early 1970s. They allow police, doctors and family members to have someone typically held in most states for a 72-hour mental health examination based upon a simple reasonableness test – little more than a guess or a hunch. The hold in Pennsylvania is up to 120 hours.



These laws focus on mental illness, and they require that the individual be evaluated by mental-health-care experts. If a person can’t afford a lawyer, a public defender is provided. While judges can involuntarily commit an individual they believe is a danger to themselves or others, there is a range of options they can take, with the threat that other options can be followed up with involuntary commitment.

However, instead of using these laws, 17 states have now adopted Red Flag laws, with 13 states passing them since the shootings at the high school in Parkland, Fla. While Red Flag laws are often discussed in terms of mental illness and they are frequently used in connection with concerns about suicide, only one state’s law even mentions mental illness and none of the states requires that a mental-health expert be involved in evaluating the person.

And, unlike Baker Act statutes, these new laws don’t offer safeguards, such as providing a public defender for individuals who can’t afford a lawyer or covering their legal costs. When faced with legal bills that can easily amount to $10,000 for a hearing, few think that owning a gun justifies these costs.

John Lott: We don’t need Red Flag laws – we have the tools in place to help the mentally ill and protect people’s rights

Baker Act statutes are a better alternative. They require an evaluation by a mental-health expert and a public defender is provided if needed.

broadandliberty.com

Who's preventing the woman from getting a gun to deal with the stalker?

And why should she have to live in fear, always afraid he might be coming at her with a fire arm? Just so he can "have his right"? Ya, I know - more guns is the answer.

Who's preventing the woman from getting a gun to deal with the stalker?

extended waiting periods

Or simple refusal to give her the permit.......

They can't arbritrarily do that - there are very few restrictions.

 

[Auld Phart]

I recently changed my stance on gun-control. I think it's a dead-end and only harms the Democratic Party.

Dems can't win on gun control because their proposals are beyond stupid! Heaping gun control laws onto already law abiding gun owners accomplishes none of the gun control objectives. Meanwhile the criminals and mentally ill IGNORE gun control laws. This is why law abiding gun owners tell gun control advocates to fuck off!

Meanwhile, 1 in 6 ADULTS are diagnosed with mental illness in this country. Many of them own guns, I suspect.

"Mental illnesses are common in the United States. Nearly one in five U.S. adults live with a mental illness (51.5 million in 2019). Mental illnesses include many different conditions that vary in degree of severity, ranging from mild to moderate to severe."

Mental Illness

An overview of statistics for mental illnesses. Mental illnesses are common in the United States. One in six U.S. adults lives with a mental illness (43.4 million in 2015). Mental illnesses include many different conditions that vary in degree of severity, ranging from mild to moderate to severe.

www.nimh.nih.gov

Or just druggies and alcoholics can go on a shooting spree or kill a spouse. I made the point when we first got married, no guns in the house.

If someone is a stalker, with a restraining order - can't infringe on his rights to get a gun.

If someone is mentally ill - can't infringe on his rights either.

Someone here had no problem with little kids having guns.

This is nuts.

No.....you idiot....the guns were locked up in their home....locked up....not sitting on the drive way.

If someone is a stalker, if the police can't deal with them, that is on you shitheads...meanwhile, you prevent the women from being able to get a gun to stop the stalker.......

And the mentally ill? You are an idiot...we already have laws that allow us to commit people who are dangerous to themselves or others......that also allows us to take their guns...we have those already......you just want to be able to classify normal gun owners as crazy so you can just take their guns...

Everyone wants to stop dangerous people from getting guns. The hot new policy option before this committee is Red Flag laws, which take away the guns of people deemed dangerous to themselves or others. But there is a much more effective alternative already in place.

They are known as Baker Act statutes (Pennsylvania’s is called the “Mental Health Procedures Act”), and have been around since the early 1970s. They allow police, doctors and family members to have someone typically held in most states for a 72-hour mental health examination based upon a simple reasonableness test – little more than a guess or a hunch. The hold in Pennsylvania is up to 120 hours.



These laws focus on mental illness, and they require that the individual be evaluated by mental-health-care experts. If a person can’t afford a lawyer, a public defender is provided. While judges can involuntarily commit an individual they believe is a danger to themselves or others, there is a range of options they can take, with the threat that other options can be followed up with involuntary commitment.

However, instead of using these laws, 17 states have now adopted Red Flag laws, with 13 states passing them since the shootings at the high school in Parkland, Fla. While Red Flag laws are often discussed in terms of mental illness and they are frequently used in connection with concerns about suicide, only one state’s law even mentions mental illness and none of the states requires that a mental-health expert be involved in evaluating the person.

And, unlike Baker Act statutes, these new laws don’t offer safeguards, such as providing a public defender for individuals who can’t afford a lawyer or covering their legal costs. When faced with legal bills that can easily amount to $10,000 for a hearing, few think that owning a gun justifies these costs.

John Lott: We don’t need Red Flag laws – we have the tools in place to help the mentally ill and protect people’s rights

Baker Act statutes are a better alternative. They require an evaluation by a mental-health expert and a public defender is provided if needed.

broadandliberty.com

Who's preventing the woman from getting a gun to deal with the stalker?

And why should she have to live in fear, always afraid he might be coming at her with a fire arm? Just so he can "have his right"? Ya, I know - more guns is the answer.

Who's preventing the woman from getting a gun to deal with the stalker?

extended waiting periods

Then do away with that. Although...I understand the reasoning behind that one, it's suicide prevention in part.

But howabout not letting someone with a restraining order get a gun in the first place?

But howabout not letting someone with a restraining order get a gun in the first place?

How do you stop him?

Put him on the 'No Buy List'?

Nothing going to stop him from borrowing, stealing, or buying one illegally.

 

[Auld Phart]

View attachment 497484

So...if my religion requires me to have multiple wives (oh god the estrogen nightmare!) - and the law says no...my right is infringed upon yes?

So...if my religion requires me to have multiple wives

What does that have to do with the 2nd Amendment?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I recently changed my stance on gun-control. I think it's a dead-end and only harms the Democratic Party.

Guns and the violence that accompanies it are too embedded in American culture, they enshrined it in their Constitution for Christ's sake.

Moreover, Americans are too fearful to ever put down their guns, so the Democrats need to wise up and just drop the issue.

At the very least change their stance and go full-bore in the opposite direction, I say flood the country w/guns and ammunition, let them buy weapons till their wallets burst.

However, at the same time, they need to promote gun safety and consequences for the lack thereof. Every gun owner should be insured, if not, they should be held financially and criminally liable if/when necessary.

Also, keep better track of them, that goes w/the previous sentence.

Let people get and keep their guns to theirheartscontent, but let's all be safe about it.

Guns should be handled like cars. Maintain a registry, pass a basic gun safety and knowledge test, show you can hit something, and be licensed and insured.

Driving isn't a right.

Doesn't matter.

NO right is unlimited.

How about not being a 2nd amendment zealot and consider some win win solutions? Nah. That would take common sense and I wouldn't expect that from someone who's only solution is MORE GUNS and MORE GUNS - it's a big industry after all.

We have win win solutions.....when someone uses a gun to commit a crime, we arrest them and put them in jail and then prison...

Win Win....what you want is to limit the Right of owning and carrying a gun to the point no one is capable of getting through the Red Tape, pay the taxes and fees and mandatory insurance and pass the massive training requirements.....so that few if any normal people can own and carry guns....that is what you mean by win win solutions.....

My way works, yours doesn't.....my way targets and stops actual criminals, your way disarms normal Americans in the face of violent criminals and future, out of control government.

Ooops. You lose. Or rather someone loses, you know, the dead guy.

The one you have to WAIT until he's KILLED before you do anything.

Brilliant right?

But for some bizarre reason, you seem to think having a registry (which infringes on no right in away shape or form)...being required to display some basic knowledge that you know how to handle a deadly weapon (who's sole purpose is for killing something) safely - is an infringement.

Yet...hmmm....I'm not allowed to engage in bigamy, if my religion requires it...in fact there are a lot of things I can't do in the name of religion. Either my rights are being infringed upon or....no right is unlimited.

The purpose of my guns is to save my life and that of my family......so you are just wrong and stupid.

Americans use their guns 1.1 million times a year not to kill....but to save lives, from rape, brutal beatings, robberies and murders....often without firing a single shot...driving the criminals away, capturing the criminals and holding them for police or for the really stupid criminals wounding them.....of those 1.1 million times guns are used for self defense.....235 criminals pushed the attack to the point they had to be shot, and were unlucky in that the shots fired killed them..

Guns save lives. Guns save innocent lives.

The PURPOSE of guns is to do one thing: kill something. Animal or human.

If it "saves lives" it also "takes lives". And because of that, it behooves us to make sure people are as responsible and knowledgeable as possible. Doing so does not prevent you from buying a gun (frankly if you can't hit what you're aiming at with it you have no business shooting it and if you don't how to behave responsibly with a gun, you have no business owning one).

Now you're catching on.
Cops dont hit what they're aiming at 60 to 70 percent of the time. Thats why we need high capacity magazines.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Maybe if this idiot had been required to take a basic gun safety course, her kid might not have shot her other kid because he wouldn't have gotten ahold of the gun in the first place.

2-year-old child finds gun, accidentally shoots sibling in head

The woman’s 2-year-old daughter and 9-year-old son were left outside in her car while she and her boyfriend were allegedly inside visiting with a friend.

www.wapt.com

You could even treat it like you do driving - start in highschool, offer optional classes to learn to shoot, learn to be safe, learn the protocals.

We used to have gun safety classes in school.....guess who ended them.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I recently changed my stance on gun-control. I think it's a dead-end and only harms the Democratic Party.

Guns and the violence that accompanies it are too embedded in American culture, they enshrined it in their Constitution for Christ's sake.

Moreover, Americans are too fearful to ever put down their guns, so the Democrats need to wise up and just drop the issue.

At the very least change their stance and go full-bore in the opposite direction, I say flood the country w/guns and ammunition, let them buy weapons till their wallets burst.

However, at the same time, they need to promote gun safety and consequences for the lack thereof. Every gun owner should be insured, if not, they should be held financially and criminally liable if/when necessary.

Also, keep better track of them, that goes w/the previous sentence.

Let people get and keep their guns to theirheartscontent, but let's all be safe about it.

Guns should be handled like cars. Maintain a registry, pass a basic gun safety and knowledge test, show you can hit something, and be licensed and insured.

Driving isn't a right.

Whats so funny coyote?
Are you claiming driving is a right?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I recently changed my stance on gun-control. I think it's a dead-end and only harms the Democratic Party.

Guns and the violence that accompanies it are too embedded in American culture, they enshrined it in their Constitution for Christ's sake.

Moreover, Americans are too fearful to ever put down their guns, so the Democrats need to wise up and just drop the issue.

At the very least change their stance and go full-bore in the opposite direction, I say flood the country w/guns and ammunition, let them buy weapons till their wallets burst.

However, at the same time, they need to promote gun safety and consequences for the lack thereof. Every gun owner should be insured, if not, they should be held financially and criminally liable if/when necessary.

Also, keep better track of them, that goes w/the previous sentence.

Let people get and keep their guns to theirheartscontent, but let's all be safe about it.

Guns should be handled like cars. Maintain a registry, pass a basic gun safety and knowledge test, show you can hit something, and be licensed and insured.

Driving isn't a right.

Doesn't matter.

NO right is unlimited.

How about not being a 2nd amendment zealot and consider some win win solutions? Nah. That would take common sense and I wouldn't expect that from someone who's only solution is MORE GUNS and MORE GUNS - it's a big industry after all.

Sorry,the fact of the matter is driving isn't a right.
You have to have insurance,a license,and inspection of your vehicle.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I recently changed my stance on gun-control. I think it's a dead-end and only harms the Democratic Party.

Dems can't win on gun control because their proposals are beyond stupid! Heaping gun control laws onto already law abiding gun owners accomplishes none of the gun control objectives. Meanwhile the criminals and mentally ill IGNORE gun control laws. This is why law abiding gun owners tell gun control advocates to fuck off!

Meanwhile, 1 in 6 ADULTS are diagnosed with mental illness in this country. Many of them own guns, I suspect.

"Mental illnesses are common in the United States. Nearly one in five U.S. adults live with a mental illness (51.5 million in 2019). Mental illnesses include many different conditions that vary in degree of severity, ranging from mild to moderate to severe."

Mental Illness

An overview of statistics for mental illnesses. Mental illnesses are common in the United States. One in six U.S. adults lives with a mental illness (43.4 million in 2015). Mental illnesses include many different conditions that vary in degree of severity, ranging from mild to moderate to severe.

www.nimh.nih.gov

Or just druggies and alcoholics can go on a shooting spree or kill a spouse. I made the point when we first got married, no guns in the house.

If someone is a stalker, with a restraining order - can't infringe on his rights to get a gun.

If someone is mentally ill - can't infringe on his rights either.

Someone here had no problem with little kids having guns.

This is nuts.

No.....you idiot....the guns were locked up in their home....locked up....not sitting on the drive way.

If someone is a stalker, if the police can't deal with them, that is on you shitheads...meanwhile, you prevent the women from being able to get a gun to stop the stalker.......

And the mentally ill? You are an idiot...we already have laws that allow us to commit people who are dangerous to themselves or others......that also allows us to take their guns...we have those already......you just want to be able to classify normal gun owners as crazy so you can just take their guns...

Everyone wants to stop dangerous people from getting guns. The hot new policy option before this committee is Red Flag laws, which take away the guns of people deemed dangerous to themselves or others. But there is a much more effective alternative already in place.

They are known as Baker Act statutes (Pennsylvania’s is called the “Mental Health Procedures Act”), and have been around since the early 1970s. They allow police, doctors and family members to have someone typically held in most states for a 72-hour mental health examination based upon a simple reasonableness test – little more than a guess or a hunch. The hold in Pennsylvania is up to 120 hours.



These laws focus on mental illness, and they require that the individual be evaluated by mental-health-care experts. If a person can’t afford a lawyer, a public defender is provided. While judges can involuntarily commit an individual they believe is a danger to themselves or others, there is a range of options they can take, with the threat that other options can be followed up with involuntary commitment.

However, instead of using these laws, 17 states have now adopted Red Flag laws, with 13 states passing them since the shootings at the high school in Parkland, Fla. While Red Flag laws are often discussed in terms of mental illness and they are frequently used in connection with concerns about suicide, only one state’s law even mentions mental illness and none of the states requires that a mental-health expert be involved in evaluating the person.

And, unlike Baker Act statutes, these new laws don’t offer safeguards, such as providing a public defender for individuals who can’t afford a lawyer or covering their legal costs. When faced with legal bills that can easily amount to $10,000 for a hearing, few think that owning a gun justifies these costs.

John Lott: We don’t need Red Flag laws – we have the tools in place to help the mentally ill and protect people’s rights

Baker Act statutes are a better alternative. They require an evaluation by a mental-health expert and a public defender is provided if needed.

broadandliberty.com

Who's preventing the woman from getting a gun to deal with the stalker?

And why should she have to live in fear, always afraid he might be coming at her with a fire arm? Just so he can "have his right"? Ya, I know - more guns is the answer.

Who's preventing the woman from getting a gun to deal with the stalker?

extended waiting periods

Then do away with that. Although...I understand the reasoning behind that one, it's suicide prevention in part.

But howabout not letting someone with a restraining order get a gun in the first place?

A restraining order against them or against the perp?

 

[BlackSand]

Guns should be handled like cars. Maintain a registry, pass a basic gun safety and knowledge test, show you can hit something, and be licensed and insured.

.

Driving is a privilege and not a Constitutionally Protected Right.

In fact, I hope I don't get in trouble for telling you,
but that is a question on all 5 variants of the Driving Exam you have pass to get a License in the state where I live.

They are going to have to know that before they can pass the test here.

.​

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I recently changed my stance on gun-control. I think it's a dead-end and only harms the Democratic Party.

Guns and the violence that accompanies it are too embedded in American culture, they enshrined it in their Constitution for Christ's sake.

Moreover, Americans are too fearful to ever put down their guns, so the Democrats need to wise up and just drop the issue.

At the very least change their stance and go full-bore in the opposite direction, I say flood the country w/guns and ammunition, let them buy weapons till their wallets burst.

However, at the same time, they need to promote gun safety and consequences for the lack thereof. Every gun owner should be insured, if not, they should be held financially and criminally liable if/when necessary.

Also, keep better track of them, that goes w/the previous sentence.

Let people get and keep their guns to theirheartscontent, but let's all be safe about it.

Guns should be handled like cars. Maintain a registry, pass a basic gun safety and knowledge test, show you can hit something, and be licensed and insured.

Driving isn't a right.

So road kill Coyote...what exactly do you find funny?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I recently changed my stance on gun-control. I think it's a dead-end and only harms the Democratic Party.

Dems can't win on gun control because their proposals are beyond stupid! Heaping gun control laws onto already law abiding gun owners accomplishes none of the gun control objectives. Meanwhile the criminals and mentally ill IGNORE gun control laws. This is why law abiding gun owners tell gun control advocates to fuck off!

Meanwhile, 1 in 6 ADULTS are diagnosed with mental illness in this country. Many of them own guns, I suspect.

"Mental illnesses are common in the United States. Nearly one in five U.S. adults live with a mental illness (51.5 million in 2019). Mental illnesses include many different conditions that vary in degree of severity, ranging from mild to moderate to severe."

Mental Illness

An overview of statistics for mental illnesses. Mental illnesses are common in the United States. One in six U.S. adults lives with a mental illness (43.4 million in 2015). Mental illnesses include many different conditions that vary in degree of severity, ranging from mild to moderate to severe.

www.nimh.nih.gov

Or just druggies and alcoholics can go on a shooting spree or kill a spouse. I made the point when we first got married, no guns in the house.

If someone is a stalker, with a restraining order - can't infringe on his rights to get a gun.

If someone is mentally ill - can't infringe on his rights either.

Someone here had no problem with little kids having guns.

This is nuts.

And, yet, we are unmoved.

I don't give a fucking SHIT how many sob stories your bring up. It's a pre-existing right, PERIOD!!! Give it up now.

 

[BluesLegend]

Democrats are okay with lots of people getting murdered and raped on the alter of liberal gun control, while they defund the police and turn over cities to murderers and rapists. The idiots have reached stupid critical mass. I would not be surprised of Dems start dropping dead of stupid overdoses.