Psych exams for gun purchases

[SavannahMann]

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.

The truth is that nobody wants existing laws enforced.

Remember the crap over the lawyers in St. Louis. They were outside brandishing their weapons. This was illegal. In Georgia it’s called Aggravated Assault. Nobody on the right wanted the laws enforced because these fine people were standing up to BLM.

Time after time. Incident after incident. Nobody wants the laws fully enforced. They want the laws enforced on the other side. They are the bad guys. Not our side.

And fully enforced is not as easy as it sounds. Twenty years ago I heard of a case. A retired Army Officer owned an AR. He had fired it tens of thousands of time. The Sear had become worn through normal wear and tear.

This man let his friend borrow the rifle. It was taken to the range. The Sear failed and the rifle went runaway. That is to say it did not reset and wait for the trigger to be pulled before it fired again. It was a malfunction.

The Retired Army Officer was charged. Tried. And convicted. His crime? Transferring a fully automatic weapon without proper authorization or tax stamp.

A worn out Sear got a man sent to prison.

And the same people don’t want the same laws applied. Juveniles in Chicago with guns are criminals. Juvenile with a gun in Kenosha is a hero.

That is the problem. The laws are viewed as something that needs to be used to control the other side. Leave our side alone. We are the good guys.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well, if you don't wish to educate yourself, then by all means stay ignorant. It reflects in your posts.

If you believe the indices from the countries across the globe were only done by "lefties", you certainly banged your head on every branch on the way down when you fell out of the tree.

Incorrect information doesn't make it right just makes it propaganda.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The truth is that nobody wants existing laws enforced.

Remember the crap over the lawyers in St. Louis. They were outside brandishing their weapons. This was illegal. In Georgia it’s called Aggravated Assault. Nobody on the right wanted the laws enforced because these fine people were standing up to BLM.

Time after time. Incident after incident. Nobody wants the laws fully enforced. They want the laws enforced on the other side. They are the bad guys. Not our side.

And fully enforced is not as easy as it sounds. Twenty years ago I heard of a case. A retired Army Officer owned an AR. He had fired it tens of thousands of time. The Sear had become worn through normal wear and tear.

This man let his friend borrow the rifle. It was taken to the range. The Sear failed and the rifle went runaway. That is to say it did not reset and wait for the trigger to be pulled before it fired again. It was a malfunction.

The Retired Army Officer was charged. Tried. And convicted. His crime? Transferring a fully automatic weapon without proper authorization or tax stamp.

A worn out Sear got a man sent to prison.

And the same people don’t want the same laws applied. Juveniles in Chicago with guns are criminals. Juvenile with a gun in Kenosha is a hero.

That is the problem. The laws are viewed as something that needs to be used to control the other side. Leave our side alone. We are the good guys.

They were on their property within rights of using their firearms

 

[SavannahMann]

They were on their property within rights of using their firearms

No. They were not.

Pointing a weapon at another person without a reasonable fear for your life is not legal.

Look it up. At the time it happened I said it was dumb legally and it was dumb tactically.

And the proof of that is that they plead guilty to a misdemeanor as part of a plea bargain. The very action the Right derides when a person on the left does it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No. They were not.

Pointing a weapon at another person without a reasonable fear for your life is not legal.

Look it up. At the time it happened I said it was dumb legally and it was dumb tactically.

And the proof of that is that they plead guilty to a misdemeanor as part of a plea bargain. The very action the Right derides when a person on the left does it.

They were on their front entrance to there castle stand your ground. And a mob is reasonable fear.

 

[SavannahMann]

They were on their front entrance to there castle stand your ground. And a mob is reasonable fear.

Thank you for proving my point. Nobody wants the existing laws enforced. I rest my case.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Thank you for proving my point. Nobody wants the existing laws enforced. I rest my case.

That didn't make your case. It destroyed it. But because a leftists activist da ignored the law he charged the homeowner.

 

[SavannahMann]

That didn't make your case. It destroyed it. But because a leftists activist da ignored the law he charged the homeowner.

Then why did these two lawyers not demand a trial? Why did they not risk the felony charges?

 

[miketx]

Well, if you don't wish to educate yourself, then by all means stay ignorant. It reflects in your posts.

If you believe the indices from the countries across the globe were only done by "lefties", you certainly banged your head on every branch on the way down when you fell out of the tree.

You spelled indoctrinate wrong, zombie.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.

/----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. You don't fool anyone. Hows abouts psych exams for other Constitutional Rights like Free Speech and Voting?

Wanna move from a high-tax Blue State to a low-tax Red State? Not without a head shrink giving you the OK.

Even switching political parties from the DNC to GOP would require a check-up from the neck up.

And of course, you would guarantee the exams would be 100% unbiased.
BWHAHAHAHAHA

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Then why did these two lawyers not demand a trial? Why did they not risk the felony charges?

Probably because they were given the choice of a misdemeanor vs the cost of going to trail and face a woke jury.

 

[SavannahMann]

Probably because they were given the choice of a misdemeanor vs the cost of going to trail and face a woke jury.

So they stood before a Judge. They said. “We are guilty.” And surrendered the weapons they had used to the Cops.

Now. I don’t know how it works in your little mind. But once you plead Guilty. You are admitting that you committed a crime. At least that is how it works with the rest of the Country.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So they stood before a Judge. They said. “We are guilty.” And surrendered the weapons they had used to the Cops.

Now. I don’t know how it works in your little mind. But once you plead Guilty. You are admitting that you committed a crime. At least that is how it works with the rest of the Country.

They pled down to a lesser charge.

 

[SavannahMann]

They pled down to a lesser charge.

They plead guilty. Didn’t they?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They plead guilty. Didn’t they?

To a lesser charge because they knew they never would get a fair trial

 

[SavannahMann]

To a lesser charge because they knew they never would get a fair trial

Out in Nevada. The Bundy’s got a lot of legal trouble. They fought the charges. They were acquitted in all be trial. They had the charges dismissed in another. The only people who went to prison were those who accepted the deal to plead guilty to lesser charges.

For months we heard how the Kyle Rittenhouse would never get a fair trial. He’s walking free now isn’t he?

Being lawyers. The couple knew that a trial. Any trial is a coin toss. They took the deal.

They admitted guilt. They said we are guilty of this charge.

But a fair trial isn’t based upon outcome. It is based upon process. A murderer just had his conviction overturned here in Georgia. The reason? Some of the evidence used against him was improper. The trial was unfair. The prosecutor broke the rules. A child died. And the man who killed the kid will stay in prison on other charges. But he won’t spend life in Prison. He will probably get out in a few more years.

A fair trial is about the process. Not the outcome.

 

[2aguy]

The truth is that nobody wants existing laws enforced.

Remember the crap over the lawyers in St. Louis. They were outside brandishing their weapons. This was illegal. In Georgia it’s called Aggravated Assault. Nobody on the right wanted the laws enforced because these fine people were standing up to BLM.

Time after time. Incident after incident. Nobody wants the laws fully enforced. They want the laws enforced on the other side. They are the bad guys. Not our side.

And fully enforced is not as easy as it sounds. Twenty years ago I heard of a case. A retired Army Officer owned an ERR. He had fired it tens of thousands of time. The Sear had become worn through normal wear and tear.

This man let his friend borrow the rifle. It was taken to the range. The Sear failed and the rifle went runaway. That is to say it did not reset and wait for the trigger to be pulled before it fired again. It was a malfunction.

The Retired Army Officer was charged. Tried. And convicted. His crime? Transferring a fully automatic weapon without proper authorization or tax stamp.

A worn out Sear got a man sent to prison.

And the same people don’t want the same laws applied. Juveniles in Chicago with guns are criminals. Juvenile with a gun in Kenosha is a hero.

That is the problem. The laws are viewed as something that needs to be used to control the other side. Leave our side alone. We are the good guys.

Wow…so much lying and distortion in just one post.

The Couple were on their own property and the democrat party brown shirts were threatening them

Gang bangers in Chicago are not kyle rittenhouse you moron…

And that officer shouldn’t have been convicted of anything…..

You anti-gun fanatics just can’t tell the truth

 

[SavannahMann]

Wow…so much lying and distortion in just one post.

The Couple were on their own property and the democrat party brown shirts were threatening them

Gang bangers in Chicago are not kyle rittenhouse you moron…

And that officer shouldn’t have been convicted of anything…..

You anti-gun fanatics just can’t tell the truth

Actually. You just proved my point. You want the laws applied to them. But not to us. Whoever you think us is.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Out in Nevada. The Bundy’s got a lot of legal trouble. They fought the charges. They were acquitted in all be trial. They had the charges dismissed in another. The only people who went to prison were those who accepted the deal to plead guilty to lesser charges.

For months we heard how the Kyle Rittenhouse would never get a fair trial. He’s walking free now isn’t he?

Being lawyers. The couple knew that a trial. Any trial is a coin toss. They took the deal.

They admitted guilt. They said we are guilty of this charge.

But a fair trial isn’t based upon outcome. It is based upon process. A murderer just had his conviction overturned here in Georgia. The reason? Some of the evidence used against him was improper. The trial was unfair. The prosecutor broke the rules. A child died. And the man who killed the kid will stay in prison on other charges. But he won’t spend life in Prison. He will probably get out in a few more years.

A fair trial is about the process. Not the outcome.

Horseshit

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Actually. You just proved my point. You want the laws applied to them. But not to us. Whoever you think us is.

Again wrong mob trespassers will be shot on sight.