Why the 2nd Amendment needs to be reconsidered...

[OODA_Loop]

To me, the "license" should simply be part of a stronger system to verify the background and mental status of gun owners, nothing more.

How do you verify the mental status of gun owners ?

 

[PaulS1950]

The problem is that no matter what you do to law abiding citizens it has no affect on the criminals and criminally insane.
We need to prosecute criminals - to the full extent of the law - and care for the insane in a manner that keeps them and the population safe. Those are two things we can do to affect violent crime. We need to offord the same protection to our children that is afforded our grocery stores, sports stadiums, our banks, and our politicians. Protecting our families is the reason we have guns.

 

[Mushroom]

To me, the "license" should simply be part of a stronger system to verify the background and mental status of gun owners, nothing more.

How do you verify the mental status of gun owners ?

Simple, simply make a mental health screening a requirement. The military has been doing this for decades, and it is not all that hard to do. Especially if part of it is a check for prescriptions.

For example, if during the background check it is discovered that Mr. Jones has a prescription for Risperdal or Clozapine, it is probably best if he be denied a license to own a firearm. And if during a basic mental health screening it appears that Ms. Smith has what appears to be a Paranoid Personality Disorder, it is best that they be denied until after a more complete screening by a medical doctor.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Simple, simply make a mental health screening a requirement. The military has been doing this for decades, and it is not all that hard to do. Especially if part of it is a check for prescriptions.

For example, if during the background check it is discovered that Mr. Jones has a prescription for Risperdal or Clozapine, it is probably best if he be denied a license to own a firearm. And if during a basic mental health screening it appears that Ms. Smith has what appears to be a Paranoid Personality Disorder, it is best that they be denied until after a more complete screening by a medical doctor.

I agree w/ the pharmaceutical restrictions.

Do I have a paranoid personality disorder if I fear the government wants to ban guns ?

What if I am a doomsday prepper ?

Is someone with 10,000 rounds and owns 10 rifles paranoid ?

 

[Mushroom]

The problem is that no matter what you do to law abiding citizens it has no affect on the criminals and criminally insane.
We need to prosecute criminals - to the full extent of the law - and care for the insane in a manner that keeps them and the population safe. Those are two things we can do to affect violent crime. We need to offord the same protection to our children that is afforded our grocery stores, sports stadiums, our banks, and our politicians. Protecting our families is the reason we have guns.

And in this I do fully agree.

Right now in our country, mental health is largely a joke. You pretty much have to be threatening anybody around in order to be comitted to a psychiatric facility. With the gross-liberalization in the 1970's, they started to just pat the mentally unstable on the head, turn them out on the street, and tell them to take their medicine.

Which a large number simply stopped doing. So unmedicated they become more irrational, until some snap and are institutionalized for a brief period, untill they are kicked out yet again.

To me it is a disgrace to society that people with extreme Paranoia Personality Disorders or psychosis are allowed to live unmonitored and completely unspervised. Individuals like James Holmes are a perfect example, who saw at least 3 mental health experts in the weeks prior to the shooting, but none of them notified law enforcement (although apparently they possibly notified campus police).

 

[PaulS1950]

There is already a background check in place. It is already checking the information regarding mental illness. Some states do not pass that information on to the checking agencies - My state does.
As far as pharmaceuticals are concerned - if a person is on medication that controls the problem then they are not a danger to themselves and others. There seems to be no reason to keep them from legally owning a gun. You can't convict without evidence. The person behind the desk is a clerk - not a psychiatrist or psychologist. They have no way to determine a person's metal state. If a person has ever been deemed to be a danger to themselves or others there is a record of it. They cannot have a gun. A person who has been convicted of a felony or violent act can not own a gun.
I agtree that all the states should comply with the request for records of the mentally unsafe. That is where I draw the line. We don't need to keep records or issue licenses to buy or keep guns.
We do need to prosecute criminals to the full extent of the law and if they are found insane then they need to be confined in an institution where they can get the help they need.
There is no reason to punish or restrict the choices of an entire population because a criminal breaks the law. I am not the criminal and I have not broken the law. I am an intelligent, educated person, a minister, husband, father and grandfather and I am a gun owner. I am not affraid. I am thoughtful and prepared.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I know that the second doesn't fit in with the statist's agenda... but that's one reason it exists in the first place.

 

[Mushroom]

I agree w/ the pharmaceutical restrictions.

Do I have a paranoid personality disorder if I fear the government wants to ban guns ?

What if I am a doomsday prepper ?

Is someone with 10,000 rounds and owns 10 rifles paranoid ?

No, because those are things very different.

Some people may rightly say I am "paranoid", because I keep my RV ready to go at all time with enough supplies to last my wife and myself at least a month. But having lived through 3 major earthquakes and multiple hurricanes, I simply see it as being cautious.

PPD is an extreme degree of Paranoia, much more then just refusing to walk down a street with no lights or locking your doors at all times. Most tend to be delusional, schizoid, and even obsessive in their paranoia. Many also tend to be withdrawn and have a victimization complex.

If you wanna have 10 guns and 10,000 rounds inside your brick-walled complex, be my guest. But the moment you start to put in firing ports so you can target your neighbors, and preparing placement of home made land mines, then I think you need a more thorough evaluation.

Remember, I do not think all kinds of mental illness are nessicarily bad things. I admit to being ADD, hyperactive, and a bit compulsive and obsessive. However, I also fall well within the ranges that are considered "normal".

 

[Mushroom]

As far as pharmaceuticals are concerned - if a person is on medication that controls the problem then they are not a danger to themselves and others. There seems to be no reason to keep them from legally owning a gun.

Actually, that is already illegal. And are you seriously saying that you think it is fine for somebody who is diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic to own a firearm, as long as they are taking their medication?

And sorry, but I think the passing of that information should be mandatory. Period. I actually hold the mental health officials who saw James Holmes just as guilty as he is for what happened in Colorado.

 

[PaulS1950]

As far as pharmaceuticals are concerned - if a person is on medication that controls the problem then they are not a danger to themselves and others. There seems to be no reason to keep them from legally owning a gun.

Actually, that is already illegal. And are you seriously saying that you think it is fine for somebody who is diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic to own a firearm, as long as they are taking their medication?

And sorry, but I think the passing of that information should be mandatory. Period. I actually hold the mental health officials who saw James Holmes just as guilty as he is for what happened in Colorado.

Mushroom,
There are very few schizophrenics who are a danger to themselves or others. That is the definition of legally mentally ill. If they are not capable of staying on their meds they can be a nuisance but rarely dangerous - just like the rest of the population. What I think of the subject is not really the question but I see antidepressants as more dangerous than a schizophrenic.

Mental health professionals are "mandatory reporters" which means by law they must report anyone who is breaking the law or who is likely, in their opinion, to continue to break the law. They are people too and they can be misled by their patients just like you or I can be misled by an addict or chronic liar.

The only guilty party is the one who breaks the law.

 

[longknife]

Another ignorant thread by an ultra-left wing nut who has no idea what individual freedoms are all about.

What his change his mind if his home is broken into and he doesn't have a weapon to defend him or herself.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Another ignorant thread by an ultra-left wing nut who has no idea what individual freedoms are all about.

What his change his mind if his home is broken into and he doesn't have a weapon to defend him or herself.

First point...Libs are very much aware of the personal liberties and freedoms we have. They just believe we have too much freedom and liberty.
Second point...They all say "It will never happen to me"..That's the job of the police. To protect me from the criminal."
Ostensibly the liberal believes in the absolute freedom to keep one's head buried in the sand.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

To me, the "license" should simply be part of a stronger system to verify the background and mental status of gun owners, nothing more.

How do you verify the mental status of gun owners ?

Simple, simply make a mental health screening a requirement. The military has been doing this for decades, and it is not all that hard to do. Especially if part of it is a check for prescriptions.

For example, if during the background check it is discovered that Mr. Jones has a prescription for Risperdal or Clozapine, it is probably best if he be denied a license to own a firearm. And if during a basic mental health screening it appears that Ms. Smith has what appears to be a Paranoid Personality Disorder, it is best that they be denied until after a more complete screening by a medical doctor.

Not simple…

What would constitute probable cause to violate a citizen’s right to privacy by compelling him to sustain a mental health screening by the state? Wanting to own a firearm, as protected by the Second Amendment, does not constitute ‘probable cause.’

And if a citizen has a prescription for Risperdal or Clozapine, both perfectly legal and legally acquired, that is not grounds to deny him his Second Amendment rights absent due process.

Owning a firearm is a right, not a privilege, the state is not so authorized to manifest such undue burdens to the exercising of that right.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The thing is, the criminal is only a part of the problem. Most gun deaths are sucides, domestic murders and accidents...

Lanza, Holmes, Loughner all had clean criminal records before they went on their shooting sprees. Cho (the VA Tech shooter) should have been on watch lists and wasn't. Spengler shouldn't have been able to buy a gun, but he got his girlfriend to buy them for him.

But if we had a society that treated gun ownership responsibly, no one in their right mind would have sold these idiots or their mothers or girlfriends guns. But the crazy gun whack who thinks that we all need military grade weapons in case we have to take on the government some day screams if someone says, "Hey, maybe we should look into who has guns."

You have no right to an opinion on gun ownership because you have your mind made up about the issue.
You believe anyone who owns a gun is a fanatic.
And don't try to bullshit your way out this either.
You are a card carrying lib. You people hate guns and gun owners.

Unsurprisingly, this makes no sense.

Millions of ‘liberals’ own guns, enjoy the shooting sports, own them for self-defense. Millions of ‘liberals’ support current Second Amendment jurisprudence and consider it settled law.

And Joe has every right to express his opinion concerning guns, as to have an opinion on an issue usually means someone has indeed made up his mind.

No.. I disagree. To be worthy of opinion one must be willing to debate the issue.
The OP has mind made up. He is convinced only HIS point of view is valid.

There is no such word as "unsurprisingly"

 

[PaulS1950]

He still has his first amendment rights and although I disagree with him I will fight and die for his right to state his opinion just as I would fight and die to protect the other rights that are what makes us Americans.

 

[thereisnospoon]

He still has his first amendment rights and although I disagree with him I will fight and die for his right to state his opinion just as I would fight and die to protect the other rights that are what makes us Americans.

The right to freedom of speech is absolute. The right to speak( or write) freely is NOT absolute.
Just as we have the right to say or write what we please so as long as is causes no harm, the rest of us have the right to find that which is spoken or written to be unacceptable.
Now, there is no absolute right to an opinion. Whomever stated that is not being truthful.
For example. If one does not vote, they have no right to opine about those who've been elected.
If one holds an idea that which they are convinced is the only conclusion, they have no right to render an opinion on said issue because they refuse to debate the issue.
In other words, if one going to run around saying "I'm right and you are wrong", they have no right to render an opinion.

 

[PaulS1950]

He still has his first amendment rights and although I disagree with him I will fight and die for his right to state his opinion just as I would fight and die to protect the other rights that are what makes us Americans.

The right to freedom of speech is absolute. The right to speak( or write) freely is NOT absolute.
Just as we have the right to say or write what we please so as long as is causes no harm, the rest of us have the right to find that which is spoken or written to be unacceptable.
Now, there is no absolute right to an opinion. Whomever stated that is not being truthful.
For example. If one does not vote, they have no right to opine about those who've been elected.
If one holds an idea that which they are convinced is the only conclusion, they have no right to render an opinion on said issue because they refuse to debate the issue.
In other words, if one going to run around saying "I'm right and you are wrong", they have no right to render an opinion.

That is absolute sludge.
You can't limit anothers freedom of speech just because you find it objectionable. There is a right to have an opinion, even if it is based on misinformation - like your opinion on this topic. Just because you don't vote doesn't take away your right to complain about it - that's laughable. Anyone can say anything about politics in this country and they don't even have to be a citizen.
If a person has an opinion the most certainly do have every right to express it. One might say they have an obligation to debate about it - even if their mind is closed on the matter. We learn through the exchange of information and without discussion and debate we have no way to share and learn.
People do it all the time. Running around saying "I'm right and you're wrong" and they have every right to do so. It doesn't infringe on anyone elses righhts and it just shows that they are either more brilliant than words can express or stupid. Not ignorant - ignorance is cured with knowledge - but stupid becase stupid refuses to learn. Even the stupid have freedom of speech - look around on this board a bit - you will see what I mean. Some of the comments may not be relavent but then they don't infringe either so all is well in the USA.

 

[thereisnospoon]

He still has his first amendment rights and although I disagree with him I will fight and die for his right to state his opinion just as I would fight and die to protect the other rights that are what makes us Americans.

The right to freedom of speech is absolute. The right to speak( or write) freely is NOT absolute.
Just as we have the right to say or write what we please so as long as is causes no harm, the rest of us have the right to find that which is spoken or written to be unacceptable.
Now, there is no absolute right to an opinion. Whomever stated that is not being truthful.
For example. If one does not vote, they have no right to opine about those who've been elected.
If one holds an idea that which they are convinced is the only conclusion, they have no right to render an opinion on said issue because they refuse to debate the issue.
In other words, if one going to run around saying "I'm right and you are wrong", they have no right to render an opinion.

That is absolute sludge.
You can't limit anothers freedom of speech just because you find it objectionable. There is a right to have an opinion, even if it is based on misinformation - like your opinion on this topic. Just because you don't vote doesn't take away your right to complain about it - that's laughable. Anyone can say anything about politics in this country and they don't even have to be a citizen.
If a person has an opinion the most certainly do have every right to express it. One might say they have an obligation to debate about it - even if their mind is closed on the matter. We learn through the exchange of information and without discussion and debate we have no way to share and learn.
People do it all the time. Running around saying "I'm right and you're wrong" and they have every right to do so. It doesn't infringe on anyone elses righhts and it just shows that they are either more brilliant than words can express or stupid. Not ignorant - ignorance is cured with knowledge - but stupid becase stupid refuses to learn. Even the stupid have freedom of speech - look around on this board a bit - you will see what I mean. Some of the comments may not be relavent but then they don't infringe either so all is well in the USA.

"You can't limit anothers freedom of speech just because you find it objectionable"
Sure we can. We do this by simply ignoring it or we dismiss it. You are mixing up the right to opine and a right( which does not exist) to be acknowledged.
In any event, In fact we do this every day.
If you don't vote you don't get the ticket for admission. Period.
That's called personal responsibility. If one wishes to opt out of their right to vote, they surrender the right to comment on what the elected officials do.
In other words ,you don't get to sit on the sidelines and yell about how the game is being played when you were supposed to be IN the game.
Yes yes yes, one can say anything they wish about whatever. Again, the rest of us hold the right to find that speech to be unacceptable and reserve the right to ignore it or dismiss it.
Again, you appear to be demanding the right to be acknowledged.
Until one acknowledges or decides to discuss and opinion, it is just noise. Meaningless.
If that bothers you, then it is a cross you must bear. It's not my problem.
We learn by researching the facts. Not by perusing the idle banter of the uninformed. Or those who refuse to believe theirs is not the ONLY possible correct view.
In any event, it was nice debating this issue with you.
I will move on now. Thanks!

 

[PaulS1950]

You are not limiting ones right to speak when you just don't listen - you are exrecising your right of choice.
People who don't vote are usually more vocal than the ones who do. I don't take them seriously but the still have the right to speak on any subject they choose so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
Again you are free to choose what you listen to but the speaker can continue his speech as long as he wants.
Its ok, I can choose not to listen to your banter too - it is one of my rights as well.
I can't keep you from expressing your opinion even though you are sure it is right but I can choose not to listen.

 

[Mushroom]

Not simple…

What would constitute probable cause to violate a citizen’s right to privacy by compelling him to sustain a mental health screening by the state? Wanting to own a firearm, as protected by the Second Amendment, does not constitute ‘probable cause.’

And if a citizen has a prescription for Risperdal or Clozapine, both perfectly legal and legally acquired, that is not grounds to deny him his Second Amendment rights absent due process.

Owning a firearm is a right, not a privilege, the state is not so authorized to manifest such undue burdens to the exercising of that right.

So you also think that the insane have a right to own firearms?