Man shoots wife and pets, blames NRA

this would require a constitutional amendment.

 

I don't know how it's possible that you came up with this from what I stated.

I'm in desperate man who belongs in my house and who doesn't.

I think you're confused. I was saying if a person is too big denied their rights to own a firearm it needs to happen through due process of law.

 

So instead of a temporary status that would be unknown to any one except the person themselves, the doctor involved and the ATF, that individual would have a legal procedure record possibly accessible to the public like a sexual offenders list, and possibly called on by investigators as a list of possible suspects every time an incident occurred where investigators thought the perp must be disturbed?

Yeah, that would be a lot more "fair", wouldn't it?

Or- are you saying that the end-goal of anti-gun people- that of confiscating all firearms would be right because a law was passed? That everybody is unfit, so therefore it's "equal"?

You trust government far too much.

 

I'm not saying anything you are asking me if I'm saying.

I'm saying you can't deprive people if rights without due process if law.

If we let given confiscate guns from people without due process if law the Constitution has no teeth.

 

The point has nothing to do with confiscation, and due process isn't applicable here- because nothing is being taken. It's a question of granting permission to buy a gun or denial of permission. People- ALL people have to qualify first, so the process is hardly inequal. Governments do that thousands of times a day in a multitude of areas. You can't build a house on your own property- with out permission. Long long list that covers about everything we do.

Except deny mentally unstable people the right to buy guns.

 

Than what are you talking about?

Permission was granted in the second amendment. You don't have to get permission to practice Free speech or to join a religion. Because those are constitutional rights. Permission was granted to you upon your birth.

you don't have a constitutional right to build a house. Show me someone having a conversation speak or the fifth Amendment and then you've got an argument

I am 100% behind suspending the rights of people mentally unstable from having guns but you have to prove what through due process that they are.

If you don't understand that you do not understand rights. you don't get permission to have your rights you have them by nature of being human.

 

if he did not have a gun, his family and pets might still be alive, no one will ever know

but the fault for the killing is his, not the seller, not the wife (even if she cheated on him) or anyone elses

 

Drugs should not be illegal either, committing crimes on drugs is the crime, no different from alcohol

 

That article is flat out bullshit. What Obama did was to assume that people who had never been diagnosed with any mental illness were nonetheless mentally ill simply by choosing to have their SS checks issued to someone else instead of themselves. My very own mother before she passed fell into that department, but not because she was coocoo, she simply found it more convenient to have my brother handle it for her. She wasn't much of a gun person, so I find it unlikely she would have even tried, but if she did, she would have been labeled as crazy by the SSA for no reason. Trump merely reversed that.

 

...... of an amendment. That's all there is to it. Isn't that a double-negative? Can you amend an amendment or just remove it? No, I think it is called a "repealment".

 

"Illegal"? "Restricted"? There are already laws on drugs & alcohol ...... and firearms. Those laws need to be overseen and adjusted to improve life for the citizen as changes in circumstances require. As it stands today (with all of the shootings) firearms need to be heavily restricted.

 

Ironic given your own lack of understanding of the source!

 

Strawman all you have?

Why are you DEMANDING that those who are SUICIDALLY DEPRESSED to the point where they cannot manage their own finances MUST be allowed to own guns given that they pose a LETHAL THREAT to themselves and others?

The gun obsessed are definitely NOT "pro-life"!

 

Utterly WRONG!

The regulation ONLY APPLIES to those that HAVE ALREADY BEEN DIAGNOSED with the the STIPULATED MENTAL CONDITIONS that are SEVERE enough to require someone else to manage their finances.

FACTS matter!

 

To what degree, precisely? Specify exactly what "heavily restricted" translates into in defined, real world terms, rather than just vague generalities.

 

IF permission is granted in the second amendment, why does anybody and everybody who wants to buy a gun have to get permission now??? The second amendment has already been seriously "Infringed".
Are you saying that makes the process we use now unconstitutional and it should be eliminated?

You are arguing against something already in place. The variable is only whether or not we include mental instability as a disqualifier. We DO currently have to answer a question about that on the application, just as we have to state if we have been convicted of a felony. The feds have records of felony convictions and can verify. They do not have records of being found unstable or a possible danger, and have no way to verify when an applicants lies and says no..... and you want to be sure they don't get that.

Sounds like you are in favor of controlling the purchase of firearms for everyone except the mentally unstable. That's the kind of sound logic that scares rational people.

 

An amendment is required to remove completely, or to alter a portion of a previous amendment.
For example, the 18th amendment prohibited alcohol. The 21st amendment repealed the 18th.
You would need an amendment repealing the 2nd, and replacing it with the language which would allow you to implement the restrictions you are proposing.

 

Technically no such amendment is required because the SCOTUS has always upheld the right of the government to regulate our rights. Freedom of Speech has restrictions and therefore the Right to Bear Arms can be restricted via the appropriate regulations.

For example no one has the right to use speech to incite violence. Equally so no one should have to right to own a firearm that could cause harm to a great many people with a single pull of the trigger.

 

The court has already ruled on this. States can't ban an entire class of firearm. In order to do what he was proposing, he would need an amendment.

 

Do it.

 

Oh I totally agree. I've always said if we take guns away from Democrats we'd solve the problem overnight.

 

Says the guy who used it as a source but either didn't read it or didn't understand it.

 

You don't.

You don't need to get permission to buy a gun. The only time you fill out a 4473 form is when you pervade a gun from an FFL dealer

 

"Pervade"? Time for you to check the definition. I was baffled by your use of that term, so checked to see if my understanding of it was wrong.... Nope.

per·vade
/pərˈvād/
verb
verb: pervade; 3rd person present: pervades; past tense: pervaded; past participle: pervaded; gerund or present participle: pervading
(especially of a smell) spread through and be perceived in every part of.
"a smell of stale cabbage pervaded the air"

Try buying a gun from any gun shop or sporting goods, and refusing to fill that form which is then submitted to the ATF, which will grant or deny permission for the sale to be completed. Just tell the store that you don't need permission. Maybe ought to look up definition of "permission".

By the way, people don't get permission to steal a gun either.

 

I can buy a gun from someone who is not a federal firearms licensed dealer. In which case I don't have to fill out form 4473. It's perfectly legal I've done it multiple times.

FYI people who get hung up on typing errors antiques are outsmarting you by pointing them out typically are the people who have lost the point.