Wat's Guns-N-Stuff Thread

[Chobham]

Was he committed after being convicted of a felony?

I've spent many years considering this issue. I don't want to see these people committing the acts they do. Every time they do the 'gun controllers' come out of the closet with the same old remedies that don't/won't work.

Two examples posted in this thread regard individuals that amassed a substantial mental health record while minors. They were barely into their majority when they committed their heinous acts.

Two immediate problems. The first is that you will have to tear down the walls between the adult and minor legal system, or severely perforate it. Exactly how many advocacy groups, none firearm related, are going to be camped on their representatives door step raising holy hell over that? That list WILL include the ACLU and the NAACP.

The next wall you're going to have to tear down is the medical records privacy act. Yet another hoard of issue advocates will be camped out at the reps door, none firearm related. Many of those groups will be part of the juvenile group.

Next come the mental health advocates. Do you really think they're going to stand by and allow their advocacy group have their rights stripped away without a serious fight?

And through all of this everyone is going to be demanding some sort of 'due process' protections.

Any legislation that makes it through those groups is going to be so ponderous, and so watered down, as to make it utterly worthless.

There is NO simple solution.

 

[ll74]

Was he committed after being convicted of a felony?

I've spent many years considering this issue. I don't want to see these people committing the acts they do. Every time they do the 'gun controllers' come out of the closet with the same old remedies that don't/won't work.

Two examples posted in this thread regard individuals that amassed a substantial mental health record while minors. They were barely into their majority when they committed their heinous acts.

Two immediate problems. The first is that you will have to tear down the walls between the adult and minor legal system, or severely perforate it. Exactly how many advocacy groups, none firearm related, are going to be camped on their representatives door step raising holy hell over that? That list WILL include the ACLU and the NAACP.

The next wall you're going to have to tear down is the medical records privacy act. Yet another hoard of issue advocates will be camped out at the reps door, none firearm related. Many of those groups will be part of the juvenile group.

Next come the mental health advocates. Do you really think they're going to stand by and allow their advocacy group have their rights stripped away without a serious fight?

And through all of this everyone is going to be demanding some sort of 'due process' protections.

Any legislation that makes it through those groups is going to be so ponderous, and so watered down, as to make it utterly worthless.

There is NO simple solution.

Simple - those that are committed get their guns taken away

You're the one not thinking it's simple.

And no, it's not easy.....there will be fights about it but it's an easy and objective measure. Till the doc clears them, their guns are locked up.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Was he committed after being convicted of a felony?

I've spent many years considering this issue. I don't want to see these people committing the acts they do. Every time they do the 'gun controllers' come out of the closet with the same old remedies that don't/won't work.

Two examples posted in this thread regard individuals that amassed a substantial mental health record while minors. They were barely into their majority when they committed their heinous acts.

Two immediate problems. The first is that you will have to tear down the walls between the adult and minor legal system, or severely perforate it. Exactly how many advocacy groups, none firearm related, are going to be camped on their representatives door step raising holy hell over that? That list WILL include the ACLU and the NAACP.

The next wall you're going to have to tear down is the medical records privacy act. Yet another hoard of issue advocates will be camped out at the reps door, none firearm related. Many of those groups will be part of the juvenile group.

Next come the mental health advocates. Do you really think they're going to stand by and allow their advocacy group have their rights stripped away without a serious fight?

And through all of this everyone is going to be demanding some sort of 'due process' protections.

Any legislation that makes it through those groups is going to be so ponderous, and so watered down, as to make it utterly worthless.

There is NO simple solution.

Raise the tax on ammunition to $10 a bullet. We don’t even need to confiscate all the guns if we make it prohibitively expensive to shoot them for fun.

 

[coati]

Raise the tax on ammunition to $10 a bullet. We don’t even need to confiscate all the guns if we make it prohibitively expensive to shoot them for fun.

Yes, that will also help with revenue shortfalls.

Tax the shit out if ammo. That should stop some of smug behavior we see out of the assholes who act as if 2A prevents any effective regulation.

 

[schism666]

guess that russian money has dried up

View attachment 2283499

 

[TrailerHitch]

Check out this Tennessee dude's post ^^^. This is his idea of a cool toy. Is he the next Robert Card?

You are such a ridiculous moron that I can't even begin to take anything you post seriously.

I would ask do you drink? Do you drive? Will you be the next asshole to murder a family from drinking and driving? Exact same comparison.

 

[TrailerHitch]

guess that russian money has dried up

View attachment 2283499

Mostly because of corrupt leadership. Guys like me will have nothing to do with them until they clean house and get rid of Wayne Lapierre and his henchmen.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

WSJ:

“Card used a .308 caliber rifle, which can be used for hunting large game, according to law-enforcement officials. It couldn’t be determined if that was his only weapon.”

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Was he committed after being convicted of a felony?

I've spent many years considering this issue. I don't want to see these people committing the acts they do. Every time they do the 'gun controllers' come out of the closet with the same old remedies that don't/won't work.

Two examples posted in this thread regard individuals that amassed a substantial mental health record while minors. They were barely into their majority when they committed their heinous acts.

Two immediate problems. The first is that you will have to tear down the walls between the adult and minor legal system, or severely perforate it. Exactly how many advocacy groups, none firearm related, are going to be camped on their representatives door step raising holy hell over that? That list WILL include the ACLU and the NAACP.

The next wall you're going to have to tear down is the medical records privacy act. Yet another hoard of issue advocates will be camped out at the reps door, none firearm related. Many of those groups will be part of the juvenile group.

Next come the mental health advocates. Do you really think they're going to stand by and allow their advocacy group have their rights stripped away without a serious fight?

And through all of this everyone is going to be demanding some sort of 'due process' protections.

Any legislation that makes it through those groups is going to be so ponderous, and so watered down, as to make it utterly worthless.

There is NO simple solution.

Yes, essentially.


Meanwhile, sitting in that corner over there is a loaded AR which has never harmed a fly.


Maybe it is the person after all.


Oh wait . . . .

 

[Wat_Tyler]

WSJ:

“Card used a .308 caliber rifle, which can be used for hunting large game, according to law-enforcement officials. It couldn’t be determined if that was his only weapon.”

Now that's a twist.

 

[Chobham]

Simple - those that are committed get their guns taken away

You're the one not thinking it's simple.

And no, it's not easy.....there will be fights about it but it's an easy and objective measure. Till the doc clears them, their guns are locked up.

You keep saying that and that too is problematic.

Question 21 g. on ATF form 4473 ask if the prospective buyer has ever been committed or adjudicated 'mentally defective.' Ostensibly a 'yes' answer will disqualify the individual from making the purchase.

It gets very problematic from there. What about firearms already in that individuals possession? Under what act of law can they be confiscated without some serious court challenge? We are told that mental health is a medical condition so being released by a mental health institution is more or less evidence that the individual is ready to rejoin society. (It goes without saying that they won't have firearms while actually committed.) In that they've never actually committed a felony under what auspice do you deprive them of their civil rights? What about voting etc.?

And all of that actually assumes that the courts and/or other mental health providers/facilities forward that information to the FBI for inclusion in the NICS system. As Wat pointed out, that doesn't always happen. Especially for those that voluntarily committed themselves into private facilities (ie. Betty Ford Clinics).

The question itself is problematic and is subject to legal challenges as well. Quite frankly I'm a bit surprised it hasn't been challenged already.

 

[Chobham]

Now that's a twist.

Probably 1:10.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Probably 1:10.

Okay, that's just wrong. Very likely the truth, but it's still wrong.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

WSJ:

“Card used a .308 caliber rifle, which can be used for hunting large game, according to law-enforcement officials. It couldn’t be determined if that was his only weapon.”

The calibre means nothing, It's the build that matters. For example AR-15's come in several calibres, including .308. If you going to make a point, at least get an understand of what means what with regards to firearms. That way you won't look like an idiot trying to stir up the water and make it muddy.

 

[ll74]

You keep saying that and that too is problematic.

Question 21 g. on ATF form 4473 ask if the prospective buyer has ever been committed or adjudicated 'mentally defective.' Ostensibly a 'yes' answer will disqualify the individual from making the purchase.

It gets very problematic from there. What about firearms already in that individuals possession? Under what act of law can they be confiscated without some serious court challenge? We are told that mental health is a medical condition so being released by a mental health institution is more or less evidence that the individual is ready to rejoin society. (It goes without saying that they won't have firearms while actually committed.) In that they've never actually committed a felony under what auspice do you deprive them of their civil rights? What about voting etc.?

And all of that actually assumes that the courts and/or other mental health providers/facilities forward that information to the FBI for inclusion in the NICS system. As Wat pointed out, that doesn't always happen. Especially for those that voluntarily committed themselves into private facilities (ie. Betty Ford Clinics).

The question itself is problematic and is subject to legal challenges as well. Quite frankly I'm a bit surprised it hasn't been challenged already.

Problematic, yes. Possible, yes. Every solution is problematic.

Committed people should have their guns taken away. Period.

There are always challenges....most of them come from people who want mentally ill people to have guns because of absolutism.

If a person is committed, take away all of their firearms. People can challenge it all they want....

Sorry you don't want to do it because it's hard. I could give a shit .....it's an easy concept. Background checks will include mental health checks.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The calibre means nothing, It's the build that matters. For example AR-15's come in several calibres, including .308. If you going to make a point, at least get an understand of what means what with regards to firearms. That way you won't look like an idiot trying to stir up the water and make it muddy.

Caliber means nothing? What dumb comment. Good luck firing .308 from the standard AR15s that are by far the most commonly sold rifle in America. There is a huge difference between .223/5.06 and .308 in both lethality recoil.

 

[Chobham]

Okay, that's just wrong. Very likely the truth, but it's still wrong.

If you're going to tee'em up I'm gong to take the swing.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Caliber means nothing? What dumb comment. Good luck firing .308 from the standard AR15s that are by far the most commonly sold rifle in America. There is a huge difference between .223/5.06 and .308 in both lethality recoil.

Not really. Both kill very efficiently. I'm not a dumb anti gun person Boomer, so fuck off with your stupidity.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Problematic, yes. Possible, yes. Every solution is problematic.

Committed people should have their guns taken away. Period.

There are always challenges....most of them come from people who want mentally ill people to have guns because of absolutism.

If a person is committed, take away all of their firearms. People can challenge it all they want....

Sorry you don't want to do it because it's hard. I could give a shit .....it's an easy concept. Background checks will include mental health checks.

I agree. Keeping firearms out of the hands of mentally ill and dangerous people is a far more realistic way to address mass shootings than pie in the sky dreams of repealing 2A and confiscating hundreds of millions of guns. Due process and medical privacy laws are complex challenges for sure, but shouldnt be insurmountable.

 

[Chobham]

I agree. Keeping firearms out of the hands of mentally ill and dangerous people is a far more realistic way to address mass shootings than pie in the sky dreams of repealing 2A and confiscating hundreds of millions of guns. Due process and medical privacy laws are complex challenges for sure, but shouldnt be insurmountable.

Maybe a balance can be found, maybe not. A single point attack probably isn't gong to work. All of the issues I addressed in a previous post have to be dealt with. The process will be long and ugly as it wends its way through the courts.

Quite frankly I'd like to see the politicians on the left try to address the issue as opposed to their blanket confiscation plans.

 

[ll74]

Maybe a balance can be found, maybe not. A single point attack probably isn't gong to work. All of the issues I addressed in a previous post have to be dealt with. The process will be long and ugly as it wends its way through the courts.

Quite frankly I'd like to see the politicians on the left try to address the issue as opposed to their blanket confiscation plans.

The issue is that mentally ill people have access to guns.

The solution is fairly clear. How to accomplish it is not.

Id start with showing that someone's right to live is more important than someone else's right to have a gun. Better yet, that person also takes away THEIR second amendment rights.

Make the courts prove otherwise and if they do and knock down the legislation, find ways that address the issues and try again.

There's no doubt that it's common sense legislation.....just has to also work with the Constitution.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Maine doesn’t have a red flag law. The state legislature should and probably will pass one quickly.

 

[HisArpy]

Raise the tax on ammunition to $10 a bullet. We don’t even need to confiscate all the guns if we make it prohibitively expensive to shoot them for fun.

Why don't we just tax your right to vote? Think of all the money the government could raise if every person who voted pays $10.

Oh wait, someone already tried that. It was ILLEGAL.

Same deal with your idea.

 

[HisArpy]

Maine doesn’t have a red flag law. The state legislature should and probably will pass one quickly.

It won't help. So far as I know no red flag law has worked to prevent a mass shooting or other similar event.

The problem, no matter how you slice it, is that we have too many mentally ill people running around out there without supervision in a society which has glorified violence through gaming, entertainment, music, and social media.

 

[ll74]

It won't help. So far as I know no red flag law has worked to prevent a mass shooting or other similar event.

The problem, no matter how you slice it, is that we have too many mentally ill people running around out there without supervision in a society which has glorified violence through gaming, entertainment, music, and social media.

Fucking rapey coming at ya with the "those dang kids and their video games" bullshit.

There's absolutely no evidence to support that.

I guess that's why he's a shitty lawyer.