Psych exams for gun purchases

[YoursTruly]

The times are uh changin. If the right doesn't do something about the lefts newly attempts to dismantle the 2A, the red flood coming in Nov. won't be much more than a small wave.

The right better do something besides ignore this situation that's upon them. Speaking from a political strategy stand point, if the right tries to ignore this gun violence issue, they won't gain near as many seats.

So, I was thinking (Oh noooo. Here he goes again)
If the right came up with a law that states one must pass a psych exam in order to purchase a gun, what should applicants be disqualified for.

I know, I know. It's retarded. But doing nothing is the government allowing more mass killings. I get the point, because I'm pro 2A. Laws don't stop crime. Gun laws aren't going to stop mass shooting. I get all that. So I'm asking for some common sense here.

Me personally, I didn't mind getting a gun permit. In fact, I bragged about it when I first got it. Even thought having to get one, meant I was allowing the state government to infringe upon my 2A. But in the end, I'm still able to carry. I'm still able to put myself in a position to save lives if the chance arises.

So I'm thinking, the things that would disqualify someone from legally buying a gun would be the following. Please add your ideas.

1. Anyone with a record of violence in their recent history. Say 5 years. (per 911 calls or provable reports)
2. Anyone who's committed any sort of crime, using a gun. Whether it was fired or not. (holstered doesn't count as using)
3. Anyone with a history of mental disorders in the last 5 years. Especially those on mental meds to control their behavior.

One thing that needs to be highly protected are decent gun owners from false accusations. Decent gun owners pose no threat to society. In fact, in many instances, they've protected and saved many lives using their weapons. Those peoples rights should in no way, shape or form, be infringed upon.
People like Ramos, I could care less about their rights.



Let's dance.

 

[fncceo]

If the right came up with a law that states one must pass a psych exam in order to purchase a gun, what should applicants be disqualified for.

Except that it's un-Constitutional.

Would we suggest mental health tests to exercise any other Constitutionally guaranteed right?

 

[scruffy]

You can't be a rightie.

Psych test? Srsly?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The times are uh changin. If the right doesn't do something about the lefts newly attempts to dismantle the 2A, the red flood coming in Nov. won't be much more than a small wave.

The right better do something besides ignore this situation that's upon them. Speaking from a political strategy stand point, if the right tries to ignore this gun violence issue, they won't gain near as many seats.

So, I was thinking (Oh noooo. Here he goes again)
If the right came up with a law that states one must pass a psych exam in order to purchase a gun, what should applicants be disqualified for.

I know, I know. It's retarded. But doing nothing is the government allowing more mass killings. I get the point, because I'm pro 2A. Laws don't stop crime. Gun laws aren't going to stop mass shooting. I get all that. So I'm asking for some common sense here.

Me personally, I didn't mind getting a gun permit. In fact, I bragged about it when I first got it. Even thought having to get one, meant I was allowing the state government to infringe upon my 2A. But in the end, I'm still able to carry. I'm still able to put myself in a position to save lives if the chance arises.

So I'm thinking, the things that would disqualify someone from legally buying a gun would be the following. Please add your ideas.

1. Anyone with a record of violence in their recent history. Say 5 years. (per 911 calls or provable reports)
2. Anyone who's committed any sort of crime, using a gun. Whether it was fired or not. (holstered doesn't count as using)
3. Anyone with a history of mental disorders in the last 5 years. Especially those on mental meds to control their behavior.

One thing that needs to be highly protected are decent gun owners from false accusations. Decent gun owners pose no threat to society. In fact, in many instances, they've protected and saved many lives using their weapons. Those peoples rights should in no way, shape or form, be infringed upon.
People like Ramos, I could care less about their rights.



Let's dance.

Psych exams for voting.

Poll tests before you vote.

Nobody without a high school education gets to live.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

The times are uh changin. If the right doesn't do something about the lefts newly attempts to dismantle the 2A, the red flood coming in Nov. won't be much more than a small wave.

The right better do something besides ignore this situation that's upon them. Speaking from a political strategy stand point, if the right tries to ignore this gun violence issue, they won't gain near as many seats.

So, I was thinking (Oh noooo. Here he goes again)
If the right came up with a law that states one must pass a psych exam in order to purchase a gun, what should applicants be disqualified for.

I know, I know. It's retarded. But doing nothing is the government allowing more mass killings. I get the point, because I'm pro 2A. Laws don't stop crime. Gun laws aren't going to stop mass shooting. I get all that. So I'm asking for some common sense here.

Me personally, I didn't mind getting a gun permit. In fact, I bragged about it when I first got it. Even thought having to get one, meant I was allowing the state government to infringe upon my 2A. But in the end, I'm still able to carry. I'm still able to put myself in a position to save lives if the chance arises.

So I'm thinking, the things that would disqualify someone from legally buying a gun would be the following. Please add your ideas.

1. Anyone with a record of violence in their recent history. Say 5 years. (per 911 calls or provable reports)
2. Anyone who's committed any sort of crime, using a gun. Whether it was fired or not. (holstered doesn't count as using)
3. Anyone with a history of mental disorders in the last 5 years. Especially those on mental meds to control their behavior.

One thing that needs to be highly protected are decent gun owners from false accusations. Decent gun owners pose no threat to society. In fact, in many instances, they've protected and saved many lives using their weapons. Those peoples rights should in no way, shape or form, be infringed upon.
People like Ramos, I could care less about their rights.



Let's dance.

Prior restraint of a Constitutionally Protected Right is by definition infringing upon that right.

Absolutely not.

The most likely outcome of such a proposal being made into law is that the people people who most need some help will not seek it.

Why not just fully enforce existing law? If someone is nuts and dangerous get a court to deem them so after a proper evaluation which would then render them ineligible.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The left probably wants a license for free speech.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Did you vote for Obama twice?
Does AOC make sense to you?
Are there more than two genders?

 

[Leo123]

Mental health professionals are mostly mentally ill.

 

[BackAgain]

The left probably wants a license for free speech.

Censorship is for your own good.

 

[White 6]

The times are uh changin. If the right doesn't do something about the lefts newly attempts to dismantle the 2A, the red flood coming in Nov. won't be much more than a small wave.

The right better do something besides ignore this situation that's upon them. Speaking from a political strategy stand point, if the right tries to ignore this gun violence issue, they won't gain near as many seats.

So, I was thinking (Oh noooo. Here he goes again)
If the right came up with a law that states one must pass a psych exam in order to purchase a gun, what should applicants be disqualified for.

I know, I know. It's retarded. But doing nothing is the government allowing more mass killings. I get the point, because I'm pro 2A. Laws don't stop crime. Gun laws aren't going to stop mass shooting. I get all that. So I'm asking for some common sense here.

Me personally, I didn't mind getting a gun permit. In fact, I bragged about it when I first got it. Even thought having to get one, meant I was allowing the state government to infringe upon my 2A. But in the end, I'm still able to carry. I'm still able to put myself in a position to save lives if the chance arises.

So I'm thinking, the things that would disqualify someone from legally buying a gun would be the following. Please add your ideas.

1. Anyone with a record of violence in their recent history. Say 5 years. (per 911 calls or provable reports)
2. Anyone who's committed any sort of crime, using a gun. Whether it was fired or not. (holstered doesn't count as using)
3. Anyone with a history of mental disorders in the last 5 years. Especially those on mental meds to control their behavior.

One thing that needs to be highly protected are decent gun owners from false accusations. Decent gun owners pose no threat to society. In fact, in many instances, they've protected and saved many lives using their weapons. Those peoples rights should in no way, shape or form, be infringed upon.
People like Ramos, I could care less about their rights.



Let's dance.

On the " If the right came up with a law that states one must pass a psych exam in order to purchase a gun" thing, I have not seen a require psych exam from either of the two, in legislation, and certainly not from the Right.

The term "decent gun owner" it kind of nebulous and in the eye of the beholder, so I do not know what kind of protection could be assured using it.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

Did you vote for Obama twice?
Does AOC make sense to you?
Are there more than two genders?

Voted Libertarian twice… I would sleep with AOC but she never makes sense… There are 57 States of confusion according to Obama…

Anyhoo, Psych tests ain’t happening…

 

[night_son]

The times are uh changin. If the right doesn't do something about the lefts newly attempts to dismantle the 2A, the red flood coming in Nov. won't be much more than a small wave.

The right better do something besides ignore this situation that's upon them. Speaking from a political strategy stand point, if the right tries to ignore this gun violence issue, they won't gain near as many seats.

So, I was thinking (Oh noooo. Here he goes again)
If the right came up with a law that states one must pass a psych exam in order to purchase a gun, what should applicants be disqualified for.

I know, I know. It's retarded. But doing nothing is the government allowing more mass killings. I get the point, because I'm pro 2A. Laws don't stop crime. Gun laws aren't going to stop mass shooting. I get all that. So I'm asking for some common sense here.

Me personally, I didn't mind getting a gun permit. In fact, I bragged about it when I first got it. Even thought having to get one, meant I was allowing the state government to infringe upon my 2A. But in the end, I'm still able to carry. I'm still able to put myself in a position to save lives if the chance arises.

So I'm thinking, the things that would disqualify someone from legally buying a gun would be the following. Please add your ideas.

1. Anyone with a record of violence in their recent history. Say 5 years. (per 911 calls or provable reports)
2. Anyone who's committed any sort of crime, using a gun. Whether it was fired or not. (holstered doesn't count as using)
3. Anyone with a history of mental disorders in the last 5 years. Especially those on mental meds to control their behavior.

One thing that needs to be highly protected are decent gun owners from false accusations. Decent gun owners pose no threat to society. In fact, in many instances, they've protected and saved many lives using their weapons. Those peoples rights should in no way, shape or form, be infringed upon.
People like Ramos, I could care less about their rights.



Let's dance.

You sally forth under the assumption guns themselves are responsible for the recent and ongoing spate of mass killings. Really? Assigning blame to inanimate objects? What you and many other Americans are missing or forgetting is the price for great freedom Americans have always or rather, used to be willing to pay. Even in today's America I could walk out to my truck five minutes from now, start the engine and drive from the East Coast to the West. That is a heady level of unparalleled freedom you won't find anywhere else on planet earth.

So, the price of freedom—of keeping great freedom and being able to still exercise it—includes rare but real risks. One of those risks we take to keep and enjoy our freedom is the rare chance of being shot at by some nutjob every time we leave our homes. Entreating the government to take away some inanimate object we've always lived with (and rely on for self-defense) is the same ask asking the government to take back a bit of our freedom. Do you really want to trade a percentage of your freedom for the illusion of better security? If so, you're not the kind of fellow American I can identify with.

Do I really need to state the obvious here? Criminals hellbent on killing people with guns will not submit to a psychological exam to get one. No, it sounds to me like you feel a sudden, overwhelming urge to pander to the ideological bent of the political left.

You know . . . cattle waiting for a ride to the slaughterhouse are also guarded by men with guns. Think about it. Will you put absolute faith in other men with guns when you yourself are not permitted to own one?

 

[Big Bend Texas]

You sally forth under the assumption guns themselves are responsible for the recent and ongoing spate of mass killings. Really? Assigning blame to inanimate objects? What you and many other Americans are missing or forgetting is the price for great freedom Americans have always or rather, used to be willing to pay. Even in today's America I could walk out to my truck five minutes from now, start the engine and drive from the East Coast to the West. That is a heady level of unparalleled freedom you won't find anywhere else on planet earth.

So, the price of freedom—of keeping great freedom and being able to still exercise it—includes rare but real risks. One of those risks we take to keep and enjoy our freedom is the rare chance of being shot at by some nutjob every time we leave our homes. Entreating the government to take away some inanimate object we've always lived with (and rely on for self-defense) is the same ask asking the government to take back a bit of our freedom. Do you really want to trade a percentage of your freedom for the illusion of better security? If so, you're not the kind of fellow American I can identify with.

Do I really need to state the obvious here? Criminals hellbent on killing people with guns will not submit to a psychological exam to get one. No, it sounds to me like you feel a sudden, overwhelming urge to pander to the ideological bent of the political left.

You know . . . cattle waiting for a ride to the slaughterhouse are also guarded by men with guns. Think about it. Will you put absolute faith in other men with guns when you yourself are not permitted to own one?

"Freedom is mess and comes with a whole lot of risks".

For those who can't handle it there's a world of countries available to pick from where they can feel "Safe".

In reality the gov't isn't going to protect us, the police usually just show up in time to write reports and count the bodies. If you want protection you'd better be willing and able to handle it on your own.

 

[Batcat]

Once I told a guy that I liked thunderstorms.

He apparently had taken a college course in psychology and he told me that I was a very violent person.

I am now 75 and have owned firearms since I was in my teens and never have been arrested for anything. I have two or three traffic tickets (one for an out of date tag) but that is it. I have also legally carried a concealed weapon for a quarter of a century. Never had any reason to draw it.

An anti-gun psychologist might give me a test and determine that I was a very violent person and suspend my rights to own a firearm.

In passing I used to call thunderstorms in. (Fairly easy to do if your live in The Tampa Bay Area of Florida.) I was pretty good at it but my wife at the time raised hell when I called a storm in and a light bulb in the ceiling light fixture shattered from a close lighting strike.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Did you vote for Obama twice?
Does AOC make sense to you?
Are there more than two genders?

You're worried about people saying there are more than two genders.

Others are worried their kids might get shot and killed at school.

Can you imagine?

 

[theHawk]

The times are uh changin. If the right doesn't do something about the lefts newly attempts to dismantle the 2A, the red flood coming in Nov. won't be much more than a small wave.

The right better do something besides ignore this situation that's upon them. Speaking from a political strategy stand point, if the right tries to ignore this gun violence issue, they won't gain near as many seats.

So, I was thinking (Oh noooo. Here he goes again)
If the right came up with a law that states one must pass a psych exam in order to purchase a gun, what should applicants be disqualified for.

I know, I know. It's retarded. But doing nothing is the government allowing more mass killings. I get the point, because I'm pro 2A. Laws don't stop crime. Gun laws aren't going to stop mass shooting. I get all that. So I'm asking for some common sense here.

Me personally, I didn't mind getting a gun permit. In fact, I bragged about it when I first got it. Even thought having to get one, meant I was allowing the state government to infringe upon my 2A. But in the end, I'm still able to carry. I'm still able to put myself in a position to save lives if the chance arises.

So I'm thinking, the things that would disqualify someone from legally buying a gun would be the following. Please add your ideas.

1. Anyone with a record of violence in their recent history. Say 5 years. (per 911 calls or provable reports)
2. Anyone who's committed any sort of crime, using a gun. Whether it was fired or not. (holstered doesn't count as using)
3. Anyone with a history of mental disorders in the last 5 years. Especially those on mental meds to control their behavior.

One thing that needs to be highly protected are decent gun owners from false accusations. Decent gun owners pose no threat to society. In fact, in many instances, they've protected and saved many lives using their weapons. Those peoples rights should in no way, shape or form, be infringed upon.
People like Ramos, I could care less about their rights.



Let's dance.

People should need to pass a psych exam in order to vote.

If you don‘t qualify to own a gun, then you can’t vote.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You're worried about people saying there are more than two genders.

Others are worried their kids might get shot and killed at school.

...by people who believe in 75 genders...

 

[theHawk]

You're worried about people saying there are more than two genders

That’s because those people are mentally unstable and/or mentally ill.

 

[Leo123]

Once I told a guy that I liked thunderstorms.

He apparently had taken a college course in psychology and he told me that I was a very violent person.

I am now 75 and have owned firearms since I was in my teens and never have been arrested for anything. I have two or three traffic tickets (one for an out of date tag) but that is it. I have also legally carried a concealed weapon for a quarter of a century. Never had any reason to draw it.

An anti-gun psychologist might give me a test and determine that I was a very violent person and suspend my rights to own a firearm.

In passing I used to call thunderstorms in. (Fairly easy to do if your live in The Tampa Bay Area of Florida.) I was pretty good at it but my wife at the time raised hell when I called a storm in and a light bulb in the ceiling light fixture shattered from a close lighting strike.

Unless one can actually read minds, psychological evaluations are meaningless. Hell, here we had a guy sending messages and TELLING people what he was going to do. You don't need to be a 'shrink' to know the guy is loony-tuned.

 

[jackflash]

The times are uh changin. If the right doesn't do something about the lefts newly attempts to dismantle the 2A, the red flood coming in Nov. won't be much more than a small wave.

The right better do something besides ignore this situation that's upon them. Speaking from a political strategy stand point, if the right tries to ignore this gun violence issue, they won't gain near as many seats.

So, I was thinking (Oh noooo. Here he goes again)
If the right came up with a law that states one must pass a psych exam in order to purchase a gun, what should applicants be disqualified for.

I know, I know. It's retarded. But doing nothing is the government allowing more mass killings. I get the point, because I'm pro 2A. Laws don't stop crime. Gun laws aren't going to stop mass shooting. I get all that. So I'm asking for some common sense here.

Me personally, I didn't mind getting a gun permit. In fact, I bragged about it when I first got it. Even thought having to get one, meant I was allowing the state government to infringe upon my 2A. But in the end, I'm still able to carry. I'm still able to put myself in a position to save lives if the chance arises.

So I'm thinking, the things that would disqualify someone from legally buying a gun would be the following. Please add your ideas.

1. Anyone with a record of violence in their recent history. Say 5 years. (per 911 calls or provable reports)
2. Anyone who's committed any sort of crime, using a gun. Whether it was fired or not. (holstered doesn't count as using)
3. Anyone with a history of mental disorders in the last 5 years. Especially those on mental meds to control their behavior.

One thing that needs to be highly protected are decent gun owners from false accusations. Decent gun owners pose no threat to society. In fact, in many instances, they've protected and saved many lives using their weapons. Those peoples rights should in no way, shape or form, be infringed upon.
People like Ramos, I could care less about their rights.



Let's dance.

The psych field has its own built in lefty bias. Trusting the psych field for a non biased assessment of individuals mental stability is like trusting the foxes to guard the ole chicken coop. One would be far better off to hire an assessment of the crime problem within & outside the U.S. border by sociologists which WILL find out the negative factors that are contributing to the violence on America's streets.