No assault rifles for people on behavioral meds or people with a history of violent crime

Don't they need to be registered now then? And if the last person the gun is registered to moves house or state a few times before off-loading it, just think of the bureaucracy which would be needed to deal with that? Apart from the revised legislation that would be required, there would need to be a whole new government department to administer it too (not that the bureaucrat fraternity would mind that? lol). What you suggest would work up to a point, and I can't think of a way to improve it other than the one I've already promulgated on this forum, viz. anyone caught with a firearm should be non-fatally shot with it. Yes, I know - shock horror - but extreme situations call for extreme measures if they are to be resolved, and in this particular case, resolved once and for all?

 

Citizens are still entitled to due process

 

That's really really dangerous.


I was just a young kid during the early 1960's but Communist Party USA was trying to push for national gun registration.
But mot most Americans memory of WW ll, Nazi German and gun registration then gun confiscation was still fresh in their minds.
The vast majority opposed gun registratioin

First there's gun registration

Then gun confiscation.

When they come for that gun that is register to you don't or can't produce the gun...off to the gulag or gas chambers.

 

Only new guns I believe have to be registered and only in some states which seems quite pointless if there is nothing to stop them being passed on as gifts etc

Not really any difference to the bureaucracy involved with your driving license where you have to update the address held
[/QUOTE]
What you suggest would work up to a point, and I can't think of a way to improve it other than the one I've already promulgated on this forum, viz. anyone caught with a firearm should be non-fatally shot with it. [/QUOTE]
A little bit harsh for a first offense in my opinion

 

Anyone who is a good hunter is as skilled and probably more skilled than many cops are. Most people in the south that own guns are as good of a marksman as your average soldier. A sniper is different given the distances he operates at. So what you are saying is indicative of a lack of knowledge about gun owners, which means you really are clueless on this subject. You must have read something from someone who was as clueless as you are.

 

The Democrats would never agree to sane and reasonable legislation to do a background check and to have a "list" of people who are considered to be on the cusp of committing horrendous acts of violence.

Mental illness can slip over the edge and become evil and it must be stopped.

The Democrats are guilty of the Parkland killings because they want a total gun ban or nothing at all.

I

 

The problem with #1 is it is already difficult to get people to go on behavior medication. If a huge punishment factor is added it could become more difficult.

Would doctors be required to advise of the consequences of a person accepting going on such meds?

 

it is already difficult to get people to go on behavior medication

So your solution is to do nothing? How about the meds and "vetted" complaints/warnings from doctors and concerned family members?

 

Someone taking antidepressants or mood stabilizers isn't a good enough reason to treat them as second class citizens

 

A reasonable definition of "crazy" for purposes of reducing the ongoing firearm massacres in America would be "insisting that following one's bliss requires possessing assault rifles" without offering a sane, compelling excuse for needing to do so.

Overcoming powerful special interests that are squeezing congressional cojones and thwarting the public will is a challenge for the American People, but not an insurmountable one.

 

The concept of keeping weapons out of the hands of impaired people is of course, a positive one. The question is how you would do that with any degree of effectiveness

Even if we create a database of people who are likely to pose high risk (which I think needs to be) and some level of monitoring those people, it still does not prevent them stealing a gun. If you could prevent them acquiring a gun by any means- it still would not prevent them from acquiring or for that matter making weapons.

The one ingredient that constitutes a point of control is the potential offender.

The idea of blaming guns rather than person who mis-uses them may be popular with the gun-fearing people, but it makes the same sense as arresting the car when it is involved in a fatal accident with a drunk driver at the wheel.

We don't do that, because we know that the driver is the person responsible. IF we lost sight of that and started blaming other things, we would lose objectivity and our ability to exercise any effective control.

 

Thats the real trick isnt it? Making them 'difficult to get.' You know anyone with an illegal drug habit? Are illegal drugs as 'difficult' to get as you think guns should be?

 

You suffer from Conservative's Conceit, which leads you to believe that there is no true expertise in the world but we can all be good enough to get by if we can manage to just survive. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the modern combat arts where those who aren't really good are dead, but the problem is that these glorified amateurs tend to take quite a few with them

Ask any soldier who he'd rather fight with. George Grunt or Seal Team Six

 

What "huge" punishment factor are we taking about here?

 

Is not being able to purchase assault rifles a HUGE punishment?

 

Second class citizens?? What planet are you from. Are you saying people with certain mental illnesses should be allowed to purchase and own firearms?

 

Taking peoples rights is definitely not a persuasive tool.

A mental diagnosis already endangers ones job, family, custody of their children, ability to drive, control of their finances and can even get them locked up in 'cushy jail.'

The US lags behind the rest of the world in treating the mentally ill because we focus on protecting ourselves from them instead of helping them get better.

Its no wonder they lose their humanity and go on killing sprees. They already feel different than the rest of us, and we propogate that more and more by treating them less and less like humans.

 

Yeah. Being depressed or anxious doesn't make you a threat.

 

If I suffer from anything, it is actually being a hunter and gun owner, although I gave up hunting in my old age, and knowing when someone like you is trying to piss on my leg while claiming it is just rain.

This conservative as you call me, voted for sanders. lol The cons in the dem party voted for hillary, or they didn't know where she stood on many issues. They just wanted to elect the first female, apparently. This is how superficial they are. As well as not knowing much about gun owners and marksmanship.

 

If someone is such a threat to society that they simply must be denied access to firearms, they should not be loose in society to begin with.

 

As I said earlier the key is the tightness of the definition. For example there are probably close to 50 million adults currently taking behavioral/mental medications so that would ban 20% of adults from owning a gun right off the bat. There are about 1.5 million convictions of violent crime each year. Certainly there would be some double counting but on the surface that's more than 20 million since 20 years ago who would be banned. Then add domestic violence (most of which is not in the FBI database as "violent" crimes). Statistics here vary wildly depending on who is doing the reporting but 1 million a year is on the low estimate side which would be another 20 million. The low estimate hopefully accounts somewhat for the repeat offenders and the same persons being in both "violent" and "domestic violent" crimes.
You are coming close to banning gun ownership to 30% to 40% of the adult population from the gitgo. This is nearing abolishing the 2nd amendment.

 

Taking away people's firearms leaving them defenseless. I understand many people are willing to allow fate to do whatever it will to them passively - be raped, beaten, violently crippled for life, murdered. I've often posted of the left's view that everyone has a moral duty to allow themselves and their loved ones to be assaulted, raped and/or murdered. But many people are not willing to be such sheep.

 

It's not particularly easy for most people, and that's all that can really be done and all that's necessary in most of the world. Going out to kill massive numbers of people is something actually done on a close to once in a lifetime impulse. It's not like massacring people makes you feel good like taking drugs does, (and even if it did, isn't that even MORE reason we shouldn't allow people guns?)

I voted for HIllary instead of Sanders because if Sanders had been the candidate Trump would have taken the popular vote as well. You're just an illustration that liberals can have Rambo complex too. Having a paid up subscription to Guns and Ammo is not the same as being a specially trained cop or professional soldier

 

A real problem with this is there is no warning of the consequences of the MASSIVE amounts of prescription drugs now - and growing evidence that the psych drugs lead to suicide and violence, rather than prevent it.

For example, currently the military is denying enlistment to anyone who was put on anti ADD medication as a child. Yet NO doctor warns that the prescription will forever bar that child pursuing joining the military. For many, the military is their only real way to attend college and for some is their career goal - not knowing this career option was destroyed in their childhood by doctors who write scripts for drugs like handing out candy on Halloween - the doctor of medical facility receiving a kickback for doing so.

Would doctors tell people "if you accept this script for Xanax you will forever lose your right to have a firearm and if you do not surrender them and that right you'll be imprisoned for 5 years, lose your right to vote and be a felon the rest of your life." Of course not. But if the doctor did, would ANYONE accept that prescription knowing it probably is a ticket to prison and a destroyed future and career?

 

Now you're just being disingenuous. The 'war on drugs' is an abject failure, just as the 'war on guns' will be.