Firearms and mental health

My Recent Posts

Currently there are no laws which stipulate that a person needs to take a psychological test to see if they are competent enough to responsibly purchase, own, and/or transfer firearms.


Do you think there should be tests of this sort?


Asking for a few male, military-aged Muslim "associates" of mine who spend an inordinate amount of time online on sites where others are asking them to "do things" other folks might think are abhorrent...


Ken Added Nov 8, 2018 - 3:00pm
What part of "Shall not be infringed" isn't clear?
Many psychological tests are highly subjective.  someone with an agenda could decide someone isn't stable enough to have a firearm.  Some have suggested that vets that have even gone to a clinic for PTSD or any other post action trauma should no longer be allowed to possess a firearm.
You cannot go down that slope unless you have a highly OBJECTIVE measure that clearly defines why a constitutional right should be forbidden and give just cause. 
Does everyone have to go through a mental health evaluation as part of a background check?  None of the mass shooters that I am aware of had been diagnosed prior to the incident with a psychological disorder.  Most gun crimes occur with illegal guns.
Let's stop trying to control legal gun ownership in the name of "public safety"
We live in a free society, there will be some bad things that happen.  If you want to live in a safe and secure society, find a police state.  Stop letting the government decide who should or should not have things
Gerrilea Added Nov 8, 2018 - 3:03pm
Troll Hunter--- To answer your question...NO!
Our rights are not up for negation.
If people get conned into supporting such, they will find that all rights are then arbitrary "privileges". 
I want to see your "certification" that your are of sound mind & body to exercise your religion.  What?  You believe in imaginary things?  You talk (pray) to said imaginary entities?
Your rights are summarily denied!
I want to see your "certification" for your "free press"?  What? You are "anti-establishment"?  We've determined that to be a special class of mental disorder, "Oppositional Defiant Disorder".
Your rights are summarily denied!
I want to see your "certification" for "free speech".  What? You are going to speak out against the abuses of government?  I'm sorry, please see "Oppositional Defiant Disorder". 
Your rights are summarily denied!
That said, do I wish for a truly psychotic person to have access to a firearm? No. 
We used to help these lost souls until both D's & R's defunded mental health services, allowing these individuals to be set loose on the public.
They need them to strip our rights away when they "act out".
Troll Hunter Added Nov 8, 2018 - 3:03pm
I'll mark Ken down as "Yes!  All Muslims should be able to have as many firearms and ammo as they want, no questions asked!"
Troll Hunter Added Nov 8, 2018 - 3:06pm
Gerrila:  Praying and talking are not the same as shooting a gun, you moron.  Guns actually KILL people- they are deadly weapons.
Are you suggesting there be no tests at all to own a deadly weapon?  You are loony tunes.
Troll Hunter Added Nov 8, 2018 - 3:16pm
Ken:  Also, what part of "A well regulated Militia..." isn't clear?
How do you think we create and maintain a well regulated militia?
Ken Added Nov 8, 2018 - 3:35pm
 All Muslims should be able to have as many firearms and ammo as they want, no questions asked!"
What part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear?
Why would you discriminate against a religion arbitrarily?  Sounds pretty intolerant to me.
Is Armed while Muslim now a crime?  I seem to remember people crying about "Driving while black", or "xxx while black", but Armed while Muslim is now ok to discriminate against?
Please keep the goalposts in one place and quit shifting the definitions.  We can't keep up with the ever changing leftist redefinition of tolerance.
Clearly you don't know what "well regulated militia" means so it is completely unclear to you.  It is well documented that at the time that a "well regulated militia" was simply the citizenry trained in the proper use of firearms.  Citizens all had firearms and if they were being attacked they would congregate and figure out how to defend themselves.  Nothing more, nothing less.  You are ascribing "militia" as some kind of official, trained, organized fighting force  That as about as far from the actual definition as possible.
Autumn Cote Added Nov 8, 2018 - 3:41pm
Please note, if you had written more, I would promote this article, as your participation is highly deserving of my white glove service.  However, as it stands now, it's simply too short.  Certainly there is more you could write on the subject of firearms and mental health.  
FacePalm Added Nov 8, 2018 - 4:16pm
Personally, i would be prepared to say that on the testimony of 2-5 witnesses who have known the potential gun purchaser for at least 5 years, their votes in favor of such a one having firearms is sufficient.
As noted above, delegating the power to deny to any external "authority" has historically been carte blanche to prevent anyone from having arms with which to protect themselves or their families.  "Mental health"?  You make me laugh.  In the Soviet Union, any disagreement with those in power was counted a mental illness, since their propaganda was that Socialism/Communism was the "perfect" system, ergo disagreement = insanity = best.
If such a day comes, i'll be an outlaw.  Count on it. 
Have you ever heard of DC v Heller?  That was actually "res adjudicata,"(already decided) for an 1875 ruling makes the import of the Second extremely clear, to wit:
"[The Right to Keep and Bear Arms] is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed;...  This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,…". 
~U.S. v. Cruikshank Et Al. 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
That said, there are already legal remedies available; should anyone be suspected of being mentally unstable, their neighbors can certainly report said gunowner to local police; if an investigation turns out that they're peaceable Citizens intent only on defensive, protective acts with their firearms, then such as these should be let be.  If not, their firearms can be seized, and the individual(s) in question can sue to have them returned.
i've had firearms confiscated from me before, and i've managed to retrieve them, no problem.  The story is actually a bit on the hilarious side, given that the officer in question wanted to check to see if the gun was loaded, but couldn't figure out how to take the safety off! (It's a bolt-action, and the safety completely prevented the bolt from being moved at all.)
In hindsight, i should've said "You'll have to take my word that it's unloaded," and not cooperated at all.  Was he going to pay for my time and gas to come reclaim property unlawfully seized?  No.  Suppose i could've sued for it, but more trouble than it was worth.
Bottom line is that Cruikshank makes it perfectly clear what the role of the federal government is in re: firearms; none.
Now, if the federal government WANTS powers like this, it needs to ASK for them via Amendment.  If/when 3/4's of State legislatures approve, presto!  Constitution is changed.
As to the "well-regulated militia," what "regulated" meant then is a far cry from what it means now.  i CAN tell you what George Mason wrote on the subject:
"Who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...?  I ask, who are the militia?  They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
 -- George Mason(1725-1792), drafted the Virginia Declaration of Rights, ally of James Madison and George Washington.
Source: in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution, June 16, 1788, in Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, ed., v.3 p.425 (Philadelphia, 1836)
How ol' George would cry at the phrase "few public officers" NOW, though...and most of them armed to the teeth, even in departments having no need whatsoever for firearms, like the dept. of energy or the dept. of education - what do THEY need firearms for, eh?
Liberal1 Added Nov 8, 2018 - 8:11pm
You just want to take the guns out of the hands of Trump supporters!  (and any credible psychological test would do that! LOL)
Gerrilea Added Nov 8, 2018 - 8:34pm
Troll H--- ROFL...
So, "designed to kill"?  How's that an issue? 
Let's go through this:
"Religious" people have killed millions throughout human history BECAUSE of their beliefs.  Religions have enslaved the human mind to false gods and enslaved their bodies to the almighty "state".  Theocracies still control vast areas of this planet where people are thrown off buildings, beheaded, dragged changed to the backs of trucks, etc.
Yes, show me your credentials to practice your faith! 
The "Free Speech" of Bush II & Colin Powell led to millions being killed in the Middle East. Forcing millions of Americans into perpetual poverty leading to their premature deaths at a rate of 196,000 per year.
DAMMIT, show me your credentials to speak freely!
"Freedom of the Press", our fake news media colluded with Bush, Cheney & Powell to sell war to the American people, costing us over $7 trillion dollars.
That same "media" lied about weapons of mass destruction, lied about Hussein killing children in incubators, lied about the Gulf of Tonkin and on and on.  We once called it, Yellow Journalism.
Each of these rights are clearly "designed and intended" to kill people.
Prove me wrong.
The EU is so afraid of "free speech", they decided that telling the truth about a religion is too dangerous to be allowed!
FacePalm Added Nov 8, 2018 - 10:03pm
That may well be an effective strategy of war; yell out the truth about Mohammed, and when Muslims come to your door in full riot mode, take 'em out.
Not very sporting; it'd be akin to spreading seed in a field prior to hunting quail, for example.
Gerrilea Added Nov 9, 2018 - 12:17am
FaceP--- Stop it, I almost spit my coffee out....
Troll Hunter Added Nov 9, 2018 - 12:31am
Dear Autumn Cote:
I have an idea.
Stop recruiting your brother's loser friends to post here.
Not sure why you're upset with too short "articles" that spark commentary.   
You know we're watching you, right?
Autumn Cote Added Nov 9, 2018 - 3:16am
For the record, I’m not aware of a single friend of mine or my brother that’s a participant of Writer Beat.  Are you one?
I agree that that a small amount of prose can generate comment activity. However, I don’t consider a small amount of prose to be an “article.”  I like the fact Writer Beat is long-winded, whereas the rest of the internet has gone to Twitter posts and one-liner comments.   So I’m not going to promote the short stuff.  I’m not saying you can’t do it, I’m just saying that I can do a lot behind the scenes to get your articles read and wish to do so for your wordier efforts. 
FacePalm Added Nov 9, 2018 - 3:49am
Stop it, I almost spit my coffee out.
"Almost"?  i'll have to come up with some better jokes.  Speaking of which, if you visit Ward Tipton's "Not one in ten did" article, you'll find a few.  Something happened to remind me of the bear joke, which i think is one of the best i know; it's currently last on the list, if you could use a chuckle.
Troll Hunter Added Nov 9, 2018 - 6:42am
Gerrila:  "designed to kill"?  How's that an issue? 
You're joking, right?  Killing people, in case you didn't know, is sort of a big deal to humans.  Guns are designed for one purpose- to tear through bodies to cause grievous harm.  And there are literally millions of them in America.  
Praying and free speech don't murder folks, guns do.  
Let me know if this clears it up for you.
Dino Manalis Added Nov 9, 2018 - 8:31am
 Mental health has to be taken seriously, each person is different, that's why every prospective gun buyer needs to be evaluated first before any firearms purchase to ensure public safety, while adequate security is always necessary in public.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Nov 9, 2018 - 8:36am
Guns are designed for one purpose- to tear through bodies to cause grievous harm. And there are literally millions of them in America.  
And this is a bad thing? 
Troll Hunter Added Nov 9, 2018 - 8:45am
Gilbert:  In my eyes, yes.  I am 100% anti-gun.  I do not think any citizens should be allowed to have them.
Now, I'm also practical.  Short of confiscating all guns, I believe there should be MUCH more oversight and gun control.  I believe there should be a national database of all guns and their owners.  We need to be able to track guns that are used in crimes.  Also, gun owners need to be held responsible for crimes committed with their guns, whether or not they were the ones using them in crimes.  Gun owners should be forced to have gun insurance, just as all drivers need car insurance.  There should be twice yearly psyche evals to make sure you're not a crazy person.  There should also be mandatory safety lessons yearly.  All guns should have a fingerprint lock so only the registered owner can fire it.  
I have a few more ideas, but I'll wait for Ken to come blustering in and making wild accusations that I'll debunk point by point before moving on.
Leroy Added Nov 9, 2018 - 8:47am
I'd like to preface my comments by saying I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment.
We don't have a gun problem in the US; we have a mental health problem.  Most of the active shooters had a pre-existing mental issue and many if not most were on medications.  Most of the shootings, including the last one, were preventable.  Many suffer from temporary medication-induced mental health issues.  I have no idea how to solve the issue, but we can do have the means to keep the guns out of the hands of people with know mental issues.
Bill Kamps Added Nov 9, 2018 - 8:47am
If you want to live in a safe and secure society, find a police state.
After having visited Saudi and UAE, I am convinced a 5 year old could walk down the street with $100 bills taped to him, and no one would bother him.  Not because everyone is rich, because the imported labor they use, is surely not at all rich.  No it is because it is a very safe place as Ken mentions.
If we want to allow people to own guns, then there will be incidents and accidents, to paraphrase Paul Simon. 
However, let us not have the delusion that all gun owners are responsible gun owners.  There are many people who dont handle their guns properly, dont store them properly, and some who have anger and stability problems such that owning a gun is dangerous to them or the people that are around them.  Not a lot that can be done about that.
The military restricts soldiers from carrying weapons on base, unless they are part of the security detail, just to limit the incidents and accidents.
George N Romey Added Nov 9, 2018 - 8:51am
First, Autumn thanks for getting on people about writing short rants. These kind of silly rants, regardless of their political leaning just take away from the quality of the site.  There are others that find the time, energy and willingness to provide fully developed ideas and opinions.
On the subject matter, psychological tests are often meaningless. Moreover, should be begin to ban people against certain activities just because they are deemed strange?  People are killed every day in automobile accidents yet we do not ban people from driving if they receive a speeding ticket within certain limits.
Troll Hunter Added Nov 9, 2018 - 8:59am
George:  Umm, there is a huge difference between dying in a car accident versus intentionally murdering someone with a gun.  I would say I'm surprised you don't know this, but after reading many of your posts, I am now NOT surprised you don't know this.  
And it is quite easy to make psyche tests that can determine if one is competent enough to own and operate a deadly weapon- we do it all the time.
Leroy Added Nov 9, 2018 - 9:25am
Yes, it's easy.  It would go something like this:
Did you vote for Trump?  If yes, no gun.
Do you believe in God/  If yes, no gun.
Are you a progressive liberal?  If yes, you know better than everyone else, so you get a gun.
Thomas Sutrina Added Nov 9, 2018 - 9:31am
All the laws and even all the efforts to enforce mental health laws are meaningless so long as a mass killer can get an illegal gun.  [University of Chicago suggested that only 11% of guns involved in crimes in Chicago were purchased through federally licensed gun dealers.] The discussion is irrelevant Troll.   Again the mass shooting occurred in a GUN FREE ZONE.  So how many shooting need to happen before people accept that putting a sign up saying 'it is safe to mass murder people in this location because no on will stop you.'  About 98% of mass shooting occur in GUN FREE ZONE
I can not think of one mass shooting that ended with no intervention by a good person with a gun.  Come on and tell me of one mass shooter that finished a few clips and put the gun to his head and shot himself.   That does occur for those that kill their love ones.  So my question does have precedent.  These killers also one can say have mental problems.
ONLY A GOOD PERSON WITH A GUN STOP A MASS SHOOTER   Conceal carry provide a good person that could be on in place.  The problem with security people with or without a gun was clearly shown in this shooting.  The mass killer assassinated security because he knew the club, and a uniform security person face assassination when the killer doesn't have as much knowledge as this mass killer.  Every movie robbery I have seen includes starting the robbery by killing the uniformed security.    
The argument that police can handle a mass shooter was also exposed.  This killer was trained and easily took care of the police that had to pass through the  one entrance choke point.   A customer with a conceal carry gun location would be unknown to the killer.  At least he would distract the mass killer causing less attention to the choke point.  
Tyler Roberts, 22 yrs old on December 11, 2012, became a mass shooter at the Clackamas Town Center in unincorporated Clackamas County, outside the city of Portland, Oregon.  He fired a total of seventeen shots, killing two people and seriously wounding a third person.  He stolen a AR-15 rifle from an acquaintance of his and didn't even know how to reload it.  Nick Meli, a concealed carry permit holder, drew his Glock 22, claimed to have taken aim at Roberts, but did not fire since there was a bystander behind Roberts.  Meli claims that Roberts saw him and that this may have contributed to Roberts' decision to commit suicide.
Jody Ray Thompson, 32 yre old on June 26, 2016, became a mass shooter in Lyman, SC at the Playoffz Night Club.  He fired four rounds before one of the potential victims pulled is conceal carry weapon and shot him in the leg. 
Troll Hunter Added Nov 9, 2018 - 9:38am
Thomas:  Exactly!  That's why we need to prosecute those who let their guns be used illegally.  Gun owners need to be held 100% responsible for their guns and the things their guns do.  If we prosecuted every gun owner who let their guns fall in the wrong hands, then there would be almost no "illegal" guns floating about.
Thank you for your support in criminalizing those who are not responsible with their deadly weapons.
With great power comes great responsibility.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Nov 9, 2018 - 9:50am
I do not think any citizens should be allowed to have them.
Opinions being like noses everyone has one and they're generally full of holes. 
Ain't it cool to live where you're able to express your opinions no matter how misguided they are?
Jeffry Gilbert Added Nov 9, 2018 - 9:53am
There are many people who dont handle their guns properly, dont store them properly, and some who have anger and stability problems such that owning a gun is dangerous to them or the people that are around them.
Perfect description of most cops I've seen at gun ranges for the past 50 years. 
Jeffry Gilbert Added Nov 9, 2018 - 9:58am
Thank you for your support in criminalizing those who..... disagree with.
There, fixed it. 
A bonified statist here ladies and gentlemen, weaponizing the law to disenfranchise those he doesn't approve of.
How's that whole "they hate us for our freedoms" thing working out for ya? Hmm? 
George N Romey Added Nov 9, 2018 - 10:05am
Based upon your post Trolls you are the one that seems to be the total clueless moron. BTW boy wonder psychological tests are really easy to pass even by people with serious issues.  
Troll Hunter Added Nov 9, 2018 - 10:16am
George:  One doesn't "pass" a psychological test, per se, one is assessed based upon their answers to the test.  One example is the common question "Do you hear voices in your head?"  Now, maybe you do hear voices in your head, or maybe you don't.  
If you answer "Yes, yes I do hear voices in my head!" the tester doesn't automatically mark down "This dude's nucking futs", they will ask a follow up question for further clarification, such as "What do you hear?" or "Who do you think is making the words?"  or "Does the tv talk to you?", etc.
Many religious people report hearing voices, but that doesn't automatically make them unhinged loons, as it's more important to know what's going on with their perception of reality and their decision making skills.
As an aside, what posts of mine makes you think I'm a total clueless moron?  Take all the time you need, I'm here all day today.
opher goodwin Added Nov 9, 2018 - 10:28am
Of course there should be psychological tests. Even if some get through the net it weeds some of the most dangerous out of the equation.
Version:1.0 StartHTML:000000228 EndHTML:000067807 StartFragment:000054895 EndFragment:000067735 StartSelection:000054899 EndSelection:000067725 SourceURL: shootings in the United States - Wikipedia

Las Vegas shooting
59 (inc. the perp.)
851 (422 from gunfire)
Semi-automatic rifles and revolver

Orlando nightclub shooting
50 (inc. the perp.)
Semi-automatic rifle and pistol

Virginia Tech shooting
33 (inc. the perp.)
Semi-automatic pistols

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting
28 (inc. the perp.)
Semi-automatic rifle and pistol

Sutherland Springs church shooting
27 (inc. the perp.)[fn 1]
Semi-automatic rifle

Luby's shooting
24 (inc. the perp.)
Semi-automatic pistols

San Ysidro McDonald's massacre
22 (inc. the perp.)
Semi-automatic rifle, pistol, and shotgun

University of Texas tower shooting
18 (inc. the perp.)[fn 1]
Rifles, revolver, pistols, and shotgun

Stoneman Douglas High School shooting
Semi-automatic rifle

San Bernardino attack
16 (inc. both perps.)
Semi-automatic rifles

Edmond post office shooting
15 (inc. the perp.)
Semi-automatic pistols

Columbine High School massacre
15 (inc. both perps.)
Semi-automatic rifle, semi-automatic pistol, shotguns

Binghamton shootings
14 (inc. the perp.)
Semi-automatic pistols

Fort Hood shooting
14 [fn 1]
33 (inc. the perp.)
Semi-automatic pistol and revolver

Camden shootings
Thomas Sutrina Added Nov 9, 2018 - 10:59am
Opher great list of gun free zone shooting.  Much harder to get a list of potential mass shooting like the two I presented.  You made my point.
opher goodwin Added Nov 9, 2018 - 11:37am
Thomas - sadly only a small section came out. It was much much longer.
There is no such thing as a gun-free zone in America, is there? Not while some States have unlimited access and anyone can drive from one place to another.
Gerrilea Added Nov 9, 2018 - 12:11pm
Troll H--- So, you hold a position that cannot be proven.
"Praying and free speech don't murder folks, guns do.  
Let me know if this clears it up for you."
I've never met a gun that has gone a rampage and killed ANYONE. 
Did I not present evidence where PEOPLE use their rights to kill others?  Yep.
Ken was correct, as I already pointed out, we have issues with funding of mental health, not a gun problem.
Opher G--- AND....the point of your list is what again?
Troll H--- As for this silly remark to George:
"Many religious people report hearing voices, but that doesn't automatically make them unhinged loons, as it's more important to know what's going on with their perception of reality and their decision making skills."
History shows us your claims & position here are a joke.
--Muhammad heard voices in a cave, he claimed it was an "angel", Jibreel. How many have died because of the religion he founded?
--Judaeo-Christian bible, shows that most were "commanded" by God™, to do whatever.  How many have died because of those religions?
Here's a short list of killers whom heard voices telling them to do it:
Nikolas Cruz-- heard voices telling him to do it.
Aaron Alexis-- heard voices.
Esteban Santiago-- heard voices telling him to do it.
Darion Marcus Aguilar-- heard voices.
Aaron Ybarra--- heard voices.
Bruco Strong Eagle Eastwood-- heard voices.
Seung-Hui Cho-- Jehovah spoke to him.
Myron May-- Heard voices.
And finally....
Andrea Yates-- Heard voices.
Troll H, you've got nothing except your irrational fears of an inanimate object that performs as it was intended.
FacePalm Added Nov 9, 2018 - 12:25pm
I just got info that the Thousand Oaks bar shooter passed a mental health exam.  What should happen to the psychologist or psychiatrist who passed him, TH, do you think?
Yeah, i left my shotgun out on my deck for a week, Gerrilea - and it never shot anyone at all.  Funny how that works, isn't it?
Liberty is dangerous, and criminals by definition don't obey the law.  If you want gun-free zones, guaranteed housing, guaranteed health care and counseling, those places already exist in America; they're called "prisons."
No law will protect anyone against criminals, the insane, or the criminally insane who are armed.  Best anyone can do against this type is to shoot them swiftly and accurately, before they can shoot you, your family, or your friends.
But i'm open to hearing about any kind of law which will stop everyone who's insane from having a firearm or any other kind of weapon...there are multiple mass shootings to choose from as examples, so if you propose such a law, describe how it would have worked in any instance of mass shooting...and how this theoretical law would stop them from turning to any other weapon, as knives and vehicular manslaughter in the UK.
opher goodwin Added Nov 9, 2018 - 12:35pm
Gerri - the point of the list should be obvious. There is a real problem with mass killings in the States. Somethings needs doing about it. It is carnage.
Are you just going to sit back and allow young people to be slain?
opher goodwin Added Nov 9, 2018 - 12:36pm
How can anyone say that fear of a machine that is designed to kill people is irrational??
Stone-Eater Added Nov 9, 2018 - 12:44pm
I think we should give any kind of arms to everybody and don't punish mass killings. Why ? Because we have the problem of overpopulation. This way neither climate nor Francis the Populist or any other Imam can be blamed. We will reduce ourselves that way, and a lot of workplaces in the arms industry will be saved. (....)
Troll Hunter Added Nov 9, 2018 - 12:57pm
Lol, Gerilla, you silly goose!   
What is "irrational" about fearing getting murdered by a GUN?
And, once again, PRAYING and TALKING don't kill people.  GUNS KILL PEOPLE.  You know, those "inanimate objects" you love to fondle all day long?
Troll Hunter Added Nov 9, 2018 - 1:00pm
Face Palm:  Again, there was no test (as there aren't any in America) to determine if the murderer was competent enough to own/operate a deadly weapon, hence my question that started this entire conversation.  
As a vet myself, I think all vets should be extra scrutinized for mental health issues given the high rate of depression, PTSD, family issues, etc.
Stone-Eater Added Nov 9, 2018 - 1:01pm
Praying is delusion. However it's cheaper than a sleeping pill ;-)
George N Romey Added Nov 9, 2018 - 1:22pm
Troll doesn't seem to understand that tests often do not come back with a crazy/not crazy stamp.  If a person believes their home is haunted and the ghosts communicate with them should they be prohibited from owning a gun?  How about if they say their boss and co workers are the biggest assholes around?  Should they be marked "crazy."?
As usual too many on the extremes, both sides can't seem to comprehend the world is not black and white.  Some would call them stupid.  
Troll Hunter Added Nov 9, 2018 - 1:33pm
Dear George:  That is LITERALLY what I said about psyche evals, in the post above addressed to you.  Here, I'll copy and paste it for you since you seemed to have missed it:
{George:  One doesn't "pass" a psychological test, per se, one is assessed based upon their answers to the test.  One example is the common question "Do you hear voices in your head?"  Now, maybe you do hear voices in your head, or maybe you don't.  
If you answer "Yes, yes I do hear voices in my head!" the tester doesn't automatically mark down "This dude's nucking futs", they will ask a follow up question for further clarification, such as "What do you hear?" or "Who do you think is making the words?"  or "Does the tv talk to you?", etc.
Many religious people report hearing voices, but that doesn't automatically make them unhinged loons, as it's more important to know what's going on with their perception of reality and their decision making skills.}
Sincerely Yours,
Troll Hunter
Ken Added Nov 9, 2018 - 1:58pm
If we prosecuted every gun owner who let their guns fall in the wrong hands, then there would be almost no "illegal" guns floating about.
Many guns come from across the border.  There are many ways to get guns in America,  There are millions of guns here illegally, you can't put the genie back in the bottle.  Guns stolen in home invasions - that isn't necessarily the owner's fault, could have been in a gun safe and still stolen.  they don't "let" them fall into the wrong hands.
On top of that, the government doesn't have the right to know who does and who does not own a gun.
People have the natural right to self defense.

James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, said, “(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Alexander Hamilton said, “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” Later he said, “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.”

Thomas Jefferson: “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”

Richard Henry Lee said, “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
Gerrilea Added Nov 9, 2018 - 2:05pm
Troll H-- So yet again, you fail to address the legitimate issues presented that are contrary to your false premise and you then say I "fondle guns all day"?
Hon, I've never owned a firearm.
Religions and the people that exercise said right have killed millions throughout history and it continues to this day!  Religious folks are "sane" up until they aren't!
Why shouldn't we fear "religion" again?  As a transgendered woman, many of the religions in the Middle East teach that I should be thrown off buildings, beheaded or hung. AND, btw...they actually do that.
Why shouldn't we fear "free speech"?  If you live in the EU, they're so afraid of it they banned telling the truth!
And why, wouldn't we fear "a free press"?  How many wars have they stoked throughout the last 100yrs??? ALL OF THEM! 
Opher G-- The majority of "gun crimes" occur in Urban settings where there are too many people packed like sardines. Those "gun crimes" can be traced directly to the faux drug war and racist policing AND drug cartels the "drug war" created. 
I'd decriminalize all drugs, problem solved.
Then we'd move on to banning any city from becoming larger than 20,000 ppl.
Stone-Eater Added Nov 9, 2018 - 2:10pm
Those "gun crimes" can be traced directly to the faux drug war and racist policing AND drug cartels the "drug war" created. 
You know why the Taliban were fought ? Because they dried out the drug transport from Afghanistan to the West to almost zero. So ask the fucking US/EU regime about their percentage of the profits from that biz LOL
Troll Hunter Added Nov 9, 2018 - 2:12pm
Gerrilea:  Again, for the third time, praying and talking don't kill people, guns do.  Sure, words can motivate one to kill, but without a gun to shoot, it becomes much more difficult to do, hence why I am 100% anti-gun.  You seem a bit confused as to what deadly weapons are designed to do, and accomplish quite effectively.  
I do like your response to Opher- make all drugs legal and cap population size.  While we're at it, let's get national healthcare for everyone, as that helps people.
Gerrilea Added Nov 9, 2018 - 2:22pm
Opher G--- Maybe you need to clean up your own backyard before you tell us how to fix our problems?
As per the link above, Great Britain has a higher violence rate that we do....Shit, it's even higher than South Africa.
Troll H--- As for your false idea about "testing".  Let's do that for voting shall we?  Oh wait, the Supreme Court said that was unconstitutional.
And guess what?  Even the professionals say this:
"One source of confusion, other speakers at the hearing noted, is that the language of the law is vague - particularly the requirement that providers must report anyone considered “likely” to engage in violent activity.
“’Likelihood’ isn’t a standard that we work with. We are not very good at predicting violence at any point in the future,” said Dr. Glen Martin, president of the New York State Psychiatric Association. The association has submitted a complaint to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rightscharging that the New York law may violate HIPAA."
You need to reevaluate your position. You'd have us surrender not only our 2nd Amendment rights, you'd have us surrender our 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th & 8th amendment rights, just so you can obtain "your precious" gun control.

How totalitarian of you, bravo!
Ken Added Nov 9, 2018 - 2:23pm
praying and talking don't kill people, guns do.
No, guns don't.  People using guns do.  Guns cannot inherently do anything-----except rust
Ken Added Nov 9, 2018 - 2:25pm
You know why the Taliban were fought ? Because they dried out the drug transport from Afghanistan to the West to almost zero.
Yup, it was all about protecting the drug trade.  It had nothing to do with the fact that they were a safe haven for many terrorist groups especially al queda.
Those darn facts will bite your conspiracy theories every time
Gerrilea Added Nov 9, 2018 - 2:28pm
Troll H--- please read the reply above by KEN.
Exactly the point I was making but you really didn't want to admit it or see it.
PEOPLE do these things...not religions or speech or the press...PEOPLE are the problem, not the belief, not the article, not the tools we create.
Stone-Eater--- SPOT ON!!!  Exactly why we went into Afghanistan, those bastards took money out of the banksters hands by trying to make their country better!
How dare they!
Troll Hunter Added Nov 9, 2018 - 2:32pm
Farmer Brown called- he needs you to return all the hay you stole to make that ridiculous strawman.  My post is SPECIFICALLY about psychological testing for owning and operating DEADLY WEAPONS, not voting.  And Great Britain (and literally the rest of the planet) has way LOWER gun crimes and gun injuries.
Troll Hunter Added Nov 9, 2018 - 2:44pm
Stone Eater and Gerrilea:  
The Taliban did not "dry up" the drug trade or routes in Pakistan or Afghanistan.  They actively keep them open and humming along great as that's been their major source of income for decades.  If anything, we American military disrupted it.  While deployed to Afghanistan, one of our jobs was to find and burn all the poppy fields we could find.  And there were a lot.
One thing that was surreptitiously found in Afghanistan when thousands of American troops were there was $1-$3 trillion dollars worth of minerals by the U.S. Geological Society.  Gee, I wonder why they were there (eye roll, as it was to protect corporate interests there in the budding business of minerals).
Gerrilea Added Nov 9, 2018 - 2:46pm
Ken, Ken, Ken--- Al Qaeda is/was a creation of the US to counter the Soviets.
Shit, Obama admitted we were training and funding ISIS (rebranded al qaeda).
And in case you really weren't sure. Hillary Admitted exactly what's been presented here.
Hell, remember Benghazi? Our embassy was attacked because we were supplying weapons and training to terrorists in Syria.
Gerrilea Added Nov 9, 2018 - 3:01pm
Troll H--- You lose.
From the Guardian, 2001:
"Western sources in Kabul yesterday confirmed poppy production in Afghanistan had virtually ceased. This follows an edict issued last year by the Taliban's reclusive leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar, declaring opium to be un-Islamic."
From the Military Times, 2017:
"Opium production is up 87 percent in Afghanistan this year to a record level of 9000 tons, 4200 tons more than 2016, according to recent report from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, or UNODC."
American Troops Protecting Poppy Fields
As for your canard about "strawmen"...No dearie, our rights are not negotiable.
George N Romey Added Nov 9, 2018 - 3:04pm
While I believe that high power weapons not needed for hunting, sport and protection should be banned no one is ever going to ban guns in this country.  Ain't gonna happen.  That's the problem with extremes, they spout off things that have zero chance of occurring.  And therefore intelligent, reasonable people won't and shouldn't take them seriously.  They end up sounding like a 5 year old talk about the tooth fairy. 
Troll Hunter Added Nov 9, 2018 - 3:13pm
I neglected to say what years, but there was no American presence in Afghanistan in 2001.  Afghanistan has been the planet's leading supplier of opium since the early 90s.  Also, 2001 was the ONE year they tried to limit drug production.  Prices skyrocketed, and demand went up, and the very next year, all the fields were back to poppy.
When we were there (military) was 2009-2011 which was Obama's "Surge" where we flooded the area with troops and disrupted a lot of drug production (a lot being relative, as we didn't really put any dent in the production, we just temporarily slowed it down).   Around 2015 or so, the Surge was over, and thousands of troops left the area, so poppy production went back to normal.
And, yes, our rights are "negotiable", as there are limits on them.  And your previous post IS a strawman as you started babbling about psyche testing for voting for some reason when the thread is about psyche testing for deadly weapons.  Lean your logical fallacies.  
Troll Hunter Added Nov 9, 2018 - 3:15pm
That's why I said I was not naive, and am practical, and gave sound, reliable, easily established policies that would help reduce gun violence like other countries do.
Ken Added Nov 9, 2018 - 3:28pm
And Great Britain (and literally the rest of the planet) has way LOWER gun crimes and gun injuries.
You complain about her strawman argument then you  make one of your own.  They have lower gun crime rates and gun injuries because they don't allow guns.  What an imbecilic statement.  Britain's violent crime and murder statistics however have gone UP since they banned guns.  As did Australia - so they are now allowing guns again, as have every country that has since banned guns.
Ken Added Nov 9, 2018 - 3:31pm
Gerri - I am not sure what your point is - we supporta the Mujahadeen, yes, at which time OBL was a member of them and gladly took our weapons, but my point was we didn't go in to attack the taliban in 2002 (who were not a creation of ours) to protect any drug trade - we did it because they protected terrorist training camps throughout afghanistan where they were training terrorists to come after us.
You missed my point.
Ken Added Nov 9, 2018 - 3:37pm
easily established policies that would help reduce gun violence like other countries do.
You did nothing of the sort.  almost all gun violence is carried out with illegal weapons.  You aren't going to change that.  Take away the suicides from legal owners of guns (suicide rates barely change if you take guns out of the equation, people who want to kill themselves still find a way) and the number becomes a very, very small percentage of all gun crime.  I could go look it up, I have posted it before, but why bother?  It isn't going to change your mind anyway.  You will still stick to your fake talking points because they support your ideological view of guns.
Troll Hunter Added Nov 9, 2018 - 3:41pm
No, Britain's violent crime and murder have not gone up since they banned guns (which doesn't refute the fact gun violence is basically eradicated there which was my original point about, you know, guns).
I thought I educated you on this on an earlier thread (I guess it could have been another poster), but just to be sure, let me do it again.   The ONE graph you people look at when discussing Great Britain's crime stat has a HUGE leap in murders in one single year.  Do you know why that is?  It's because they caught a serial killer who confessed to killing hundreds of people over three decades, and they just lumped ALL his murders into that single year.  
And, for the record, Great Britain's crime rate overall is way lower than America's.  Also, America's violent crime rate has steadily been declining for decades except for one singular stat- gun violence.  THAT has increased.  All other violent crimes have seen a reduction.
So, back to my original question- do you think we should have psychological testing for those people who want to own, operate, and transfer deadly weapons?  I say we should.  Because I don't want crazy people to have guns and mass murder folks.
What say you?
Bill Kamps Added Nov 9, 2018 - 3:53pm
Umm, there is a huge difference between dying in a car accident versus intentionally murdering someone with a gun.  
There is a difference, I wouldnt call it huge.  DUI accidents and reckless driving accidents can be manslaughter depending on the circumstances.  Getting killed is getting killed.  There are some 35K deaths in the highway, about 10K gun murders in the country.
That's why we need to prosecute those who let their guns be used illegally.  Gun owners need to be held 100% responsible for their guns and the things their guns do.
Seems extreme.  What if the gun is locked up, and is acquired anyway? what if your house is robbed?
Most guns used in violent crime are not loaned to someone, or taken from someone where it was just laying about.  It happens but it is rare.  Rare enough not to be a big part of the problem.
Troll Hunter Added Nov 9, 2018 - 4:01pm
Cars aren't designed to kill people and they are HEAVILY regulated (national registry, insurance, mandatory safety features, etc.).  I call it a huge difference as guns are designed to, and do, kill people intentionally, and there are hardly ANY regulations on them. 
In the case of theft where the gun was locked up, I'd reduce the gun owner to 50% culpable for any crimes committed with their deadly weapon.  Gotta keep a sharp eye on your stuff.  These are DEADLY weapons we're talking about, not comic books or lawn mowers.
Bill Kamps Added Nov 9, 2018 - 4:17pm
Cars aren't designed to kill people and they are HEAVILY regulated
There is no Constitutional right to own a car. 
My point is that we have gotten used to 35K people dying every year in car accidents, it is just considered part of the price we pay for society that owns lots of cars.  You dont see a lot of call for better car safety.   Similarly 10K people are killed in gun violence, and that is part of the price we pay for the 2nd Amendment.   More regulation, probably is not going to significantly reduce that number. 
We have 350 million people in this country, lots of people die from the flu, from car wrecks and other causes. With the exception of a very few neighborhoods, gun violence is statistically unusual.  If you eliminate those neighborhoods where violence is common then gun deaths are really fairly rare.   
While I dont have a problem with better background checks, there is no reason to believe the number of gun deaths would be lower, especially those that are "mass" killings where someone sets out to kill a number of people. 
George N Romey Added Nov 9, 2018 - 4:24pm
Predicting the next mass murder isn't as easy as some might think.  Should anyone angry at some thing or someone be prohibited from buying a gun? What's the threshold?  Also, psychopaths can be very engaging and deceptive when they want or need to be.  Not all are simply going to claim they want to kill others.  
Thomas Sutrina Added Nov 9, 2018 - 4:38pm
Opher everyone of the places on you list are 'gun free zones' they are not large but the they have a sign on the doors that tell law bidding citizens not to enter with a gun.  And you can go to jail for not following the wishes of the establishment.   Larger gun free zones include schools and universities.  Military bases do you believe when Obama was president and I suspect amusement parks and even state and national parks.  But criminals and mass murderers do not care about a since.   Chicago tried to make the city a gun free zone by ordnance but lost the case in court.   So now the restriction are so odious that it approaches a gun free zone. 
Society mental state or rather the nature of the society determine the willingness of citizens to murder each other.  Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence.”    
"The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland’s murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns.  
Russia’s murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of
totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns."   I appear that England's low gun ownership as resulted in knifes being the weapon of choice for murder.    If they could restrict knifes then sharpened sticks would be the next weapon of choice.  Do you end the ownership of pencils, pens, and change all keys to blunt objects.  And even heavy blunt objects are murder weapons so all vehicles need to be eliminated or fully computer controlled. And what do you do about rocks?
Bill Kamps Added Nov 9, 2018 - 4:42pm
George, predicting is very difficult.  Also, doing things like putting guns in schools may stop the attacks, but we will trade some number of accidents, for the attacks.  Cant put 100K guns into schools, and not  have a few accidents.  Will it be more than the 50 or so killed in schools? difficult to say.  Will there be lawsuits when there are accidents, yes of course.
Gerrilea Added Nov 9, 2018 - 4:45pm
Troll H--- We've "discussed" this issue at length.  The only reason you're bringing it up now is that the House plans on attempting more gun control.  Let's see who blinks first.  We had recall elections in Colorado and the gun-grabbers were removed from office. 
Do you want a repeat of 2010 or 2012?  We voted the majority of D's out of every elected position in this nation, from Dog Catcher to Senator.
The US Government has no authority to "negotiate" our rights, period.  They can request that We The People go along with their desires by attempting Article V.
You failed to accept that EVEN the doctors you wish to employ to "test" people for "sanity" have no way of "testing for future violence".  You'd have us surrender our privacy, due process, self-incrimination, et al to appease your "precious".
And, your disinformation will not work.  Links and evidence has been presented to counter the false narrative you're attempting to push here.
The United Kingdom has a higher violence rate than any other nation, as per their own standards.  We, however, do not.
The US invaded Afghanistan to allegedly get OBL, who was sitting in a compound in Pakistan.  We didn't go after the Saudi's when 15 of the 19 were from that country? Why's that again?  In less than 1 yr after our invasion, the poppy-fields were in full bloom once again and protected by our soldiers.
Ken, we seem to agree on the 2nd A but I will not concede that the "Taliban", our creation, was a threat.  That "official narrative" has been debunked for years.
Thomas Sutrina Added Nov 9, 2018 - 5:00pm
The Harvard study results for me does suggest a solution to mass murder.  Teach the citizens respect for human life.  Which means that these two religions socialism and Islam that both separate people into classes of lesser and more humans need to be rejected by the people. As it happens both also wrap the religion into a government and use the powers of government and control of the economy and education system and media to insure the beliefs of the religion dominate the thought of the society.
We need a classless society that is against Socialist and Islamic government teachings, where the individual in important not a nation where the goals of the state are more important, where the people are treated by society as a collective.  Even the mentally ill are effected by the beliefs of a society because it is ingrained into them before they become ill.
The free enterprise system where no exchange can take place unless both parties choose to and that neither party as an advantage resulting from special treatment by government or the lack of other choices resulting from one parties efforts.  In such a economic system Adam Smith observed that when people work for the betterment of themselves then also improve the whole society which was not their intent.  The opposite is true in economic system that have government giving out special treatment and  where the larger plays have eliminated much of the competition and prevent replacement solutions from appearing.  Society is worse of.
The USSR and the Islamic Caliphates all collapsed due to the negative effects of government making major economic decisions.  Their is a sliding scale between the two extremes and the success of an nation is directly related to where on that scale a nation is.  It will take time from a change to actually reach the equilibrium point on the scale, decades in many cases.  
Jeff Michka Added Nov 9, 2018 - 5:20pm
On top of everything raised here, WBers should remember 'rilla came to us spouting NRA talking points and is a big NRA supporter as well as shill.  She MUST be paid.  And y'all have missed the rightist solution:  What outcome would there have been if all those people in the BAR were armed?  They would have all pulled their weapons and would have simultaneously fired at the gunmen.  The bullets not hitting the gunman would have only hit a few standersby, so maybe only 7 would have died, not 8.  And why, as asked early in this functional waste of time article, aren't we handing AR15s to all people flowing into this country from the Middle East over our "open borders"?  They could be handed the weapons as they go to baggage to pick up their suicide bomb vests waiting for them.  You gun freaks should be happy with that idea.  Maybe 'rilla will ask the NRA for membership kits for the newly armed immigrants, win-win....
Ken Added Nov 9, 2018 - 5:48pm
And y'all have missed the rightist solution:  What outcome would there have been if all those people in the BAR were armed?
Completely false narrative.  There are numerous examples of a gunman going into a situation where one or more people were armed.  None have led to mass casualties.  In all cases no more than 1 or 2 people were injured by the gunman before he was either put down or subdued.  Since you don't care about the truth and just want to spam stories, I am not going to both posting links to dozens of such incidents that are easy enough to find if you care, but I know you don't.
Gerrilea Added Nov 9, 2018 - 7:00pm
"...rightist's solution".... ROFL, me all the names you wish, defame my character as a paid NRA shill....keep on keeping on.
I'll defend our rights, even if you will not...that way we both can exercise them, if and when we chose.
BTW, I'm a paid member of the ACLU, despite our differences on what the 2nd A entails.
Flying Junior Added Nov 10, 2018 - 3:45am
I will never forget the mother of one of the victims.  She was angry.  "I don't want any thoughts or prayers.  No more thoughts and prayers.  I want gun control."
Dummies can scream to the high heavens how gun control has nothing to do with it.  Y'all are aging out of the system.  Change will come.  Only problem is it is thirty years too late.
But nobody can tell me that gun laws don't matter.  The long clip that the shooter used was illegal in California and half a dozen other states.
How hard is it to drive across the typical border between states?  Dammit we need some tighter gun laws and fucking twenty-five years ago.  Screw the NRA, Ted Nugent and all of the cognitive dissonance crowd.  Side with the young.  Their brains are more active.
That said, the more I learn about this poor soldier, the more I feel sorry for him.  Basically, even though these people at the club were the only real bright spot in his life, and as much as he at least tried to love going there with girls and friends, in truth, he just couldn't stand to see happy people because he just couldn't feel it himself.  He was completely destroyed and traumatized by a senseless war that never should have been prosecuted.  It's like Martin Luther King Jr. told us all in 1963.
In our collective lives, our sin rises to even greater heights. See how we treat each other. Races trample over races; nations trample over nations. We go to war and destroy the values and the lives that God has given us. We leave the battlefields of the world painted with blood, and we end up with wars that burden us with national debts higher than mountains of gold, filling our nations with orphans and widows, sending thousands of men home psychologically deranged and physically handicapped... This is the tragic plight of man... So long as he lives on the lower level he will be frustrated, disillusioned and bewildered... Western civilization, like the prodigal son, has strayed away to the far country of segregation and discrimination. You have trampled over sixteen million of your brothers... In the midst of all your material wealth, you are spiritually and morally poverty-stricken, unable to speak to the conscience of this world.
This quotation can be found in the book, Martin Luther King Jr. A Man of Peace in a Time of War.
Yes, what a tragedy indeed.  And by this I don't mean the empty platitude that we typically hear from the talking heads.  This young man's life indeed played out to be a tragedy.  He must have been a wonderful, beautiful human being.  He was twisted into something unrecognizable by the inhuman pressures of war and the military life and then cast into society raised on Marshall Dillon and Gunsmoke.  My heart really goes out to the guy.  I wish he could have been just another happy guy in a cowboy hat and boots.
Gerrilea Added Nov 10, 2018 - 4:52am
Flying J-- What law do you propose will muster a constitutional challenge?  Do you offer your services to go and collect them?  And since Ginsberg is on her death bed, the Supreme Court will be in the hands of conservatives for generations to come.
You "laws" will not stop someone whom will not follow them.
Since we're up for banning stuff, let's ban bicycle locks, black masks and socks....the satanic devices used by your "antifa".
You really don't want to save lives....period.
Bill Kamps Added Nov 10, 2018 - 8:04am
But nobody can tell me that gun laws don't matter.  The long clip that the shooter used was illegal in California and half a dozen other states.
So the clip could be made illegal, and he wouldnt have done the act?  I dont buy that.   Easy enough to get the clip on the illegal market, or simply bring a second loaded clip, it only takes a couple of seconds to swap clips. 
That is the falicy of many of these gun law arguments.  We think that if we just put the right laws in place, that people motivated to kill others will simply stop.   It isnt true.
Mass shootings are not events that can be stopped with different laws.  Someone planning on shooting a large number of other people, and losing their life in the process, will find a way to get a gun that serves their purpose.  If it isnt the AR-15, it will be something else. 
I think many of the people proposing new laws are well meaning, and not necessarily trying to restrict our rights.  However, it is simply wrong to think that changing laws will prevent these acts.  The entire act of murder is illegal.  The premeditated killing of many people is grossly illegal.  If the shooter has jumped the moral rails such that they are planning on killing many, they arent going to be stopped by the technicalities of what guns or clips are legal or illegal. 
It is frustrating I know.  However, we lose 100 people every day to auto deaths, and we arent pounding  the drums to stop these deaths? Why? because we know there is little that can be done about it, and it is the price we pay for 350 million people having access to cars.  It is a big country there will be accidents.  There will also be gun deaths when people have a right to own guns.
Riley Brown Added Nov 10, 2018 - 12:57pm
Troll Hunter, I live in Southern California not too far from the last mass shooting and we already forbid people with criminal problems and mental issues from buying guns like the one that was used in the shooting.  In a strange way those laws often backfire.
Lots of people avoid seeking help for their mental issues because they don't want the record of treatment to hold them back in the future.  Theoretically someone whose wife died painfully from cancer and sought help to get over that terrible time in their life can easily end up with a lifetime ban because they were despondent back then.
The tough problem is that the "signs" we end up looking for are so common that we'd end up taking guns away from thousands of good people in an attempt to stop the ONE that might really be inclined to so something stupid.
Back when we decided anyone who had ever committed domestic violence needed to be denied the right to own a gun, hundreds of very good police lost their jobs. 
Troll Hunter Added Nov 10, 2018 - 1:41pm
Riley:  Depression doesn't in any way prohibit one from getting a firearm.  Criminal records and serious mental problems that include physical altercations may.  
Troll Hunter Added Nov 10, 2018 - 1:42pm
So, to recap, about 12 of you here are AGAINST psychological tests to see if one is competent enough to own a firearm.
My Muslim "associates" are pleased with that.  
Bill Kamps Added Nov 10, 2018 - 2:05pm
TH, I actually dont care if there are psych tests.  I just dont think they will do any good.  Someone that is motivated to kill a large number of people, and is willing to lose their life in the process, is hardly going to be stopped by gun laws. 
Riley Brown Added Nov 10, 2018 - 4:00pm
Troll Hunter, I beg to disagree, if you get super depressed and good intentioned folks worry you might commit suicide, the police will lock you away on a 51-50 hold and you will lose you right to own a gun.
If  you have lots of money for attorneys you might be able to get it back but it won't be easy, fast or free.
In theory a 51-50 hold doesn't have to cause that to happen but often does because in many places the authorities don't have enough staff to fairly evaluate and process the volume of people they receive, in time for them to meet the deadline for being released without that stipulation being put on their record.
I woudn't know any more about it than you if it hadn't happened so someone I know well.  Fortunately for them they don't own a gun but  if they had it would have been confiscated, and they can't buy one now that it's on their record.  They also can't get some types of jobs like working for the FAA, because their mental record suggests they are more likely to become despondent and possibly homicidal than people who have never has a problem.
Troll Hunter Added Nov 10, 2018 - 4:02pm
Riley:  Suicide ideations and threats are serious matters, and you should be 51-50ed.
Just "being depressed" doesn't impact your ability to own or operate a gun.
Bill Kamps Added Nov 10, 2018 - 4:13pm
TH, please tell me how doing a pysch test will stop mass killings?
It might keep some people from buying a gun legally, granted.  Are you are trying to say that someone intent on killing a large number of people, and losing their life in the process, will not find a way to get the gun that they need?  They will just give up on this mission and go about a peaceful life ?
These are not crimes of opportunities, these crimes take some planning, and with a little planning someone can get a gun. 
Gerrilea Added Nov 10, 2018 - 4:27pm
Troll H---  Who cares what religion they are?  You've repeatedly referenced Muslims. 
"Depression doesn't in any way prohibit one from getting a firearm.  Criminal records and serious mental problems that include physical altercations may."
That position is completely incorrect, "psychological testing" as has already been passed here in New York State despite the warnings of the actual professionals.  (I presented you with the link above).
Add to that any prescription drugs you MAY have ever taken, they will be used to confiscate your 2nd Amendment and your guns.
Here's the list:

Abilify - antipsychotic used to treat schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and agitation

Adderall - stimulant used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

Ambien - used as a sleep aid, cause drousiness

Antabuse - used to treat alcohol addiction

Aricept - used to slow the progression of dementia

Anafranil - tricyclic antidepressant

Asenapine - antipsychotic used to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder

Ativan - benzodiazepine, used to relieve anxiety[1]

Benperidol - an antipsychotic

BuSpar - an anti -anxiety medication

Benzodiazepines - a class of sedatives

Benzydamine - an anti-inflammatory drug

Celexa - an antidepressant of the SSRI class (Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor)

Clozaril - an atypical antipsychotic (Clozapine)

Concerta - used to treat ADD/ADHD

Cymbalta - an antidepressant of the SSNRI (Selective Serotonin and Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitor) class, similar to Effexor (venlafaxine)

Depakote - an atiepileptic and mood stabilizer used to treat bipolar disorder, neuropathic pain and others. Sometimes called an antimanic medication

Dextromethorphan - an antitussive drug

Effexor - an antidepressant of the SSNRI (or SNRI) class

Elavil - a tricyclic antidepressant (TCA), less commonly used these days

Eskalith - a salt of Lithium, which is a mood stabilizer used to prevent bipolar disorder.

Fluoxetine - (Prozac) is used to treat major depressive disorder, bulimia nervosa (an eating disorder) obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, and premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD).

Gabitril - a mood stabilizer

Geodon - an "atypical" antipsychotic

Haldol - a "typical" antipsychotic, one of the oldest, usually given in conjunction with "cogentin", an antiparkinsonic. This is due to the high occurrence of tardive dyskinesia on patients with prolonged Haldol use.

Imipramine - a tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) which is sometimes used to treat bulimia, panic disorder, or related disorders

Inderal - a beta blocker known as propranolol. It is used for acute anxiety, panic attacks, hypertension.

Keppra - an anticonvulsant drug which is sometimes used as a mood stabilizer

Klonopin - antianxiety medication of the benzodiazepine class

Lamictal - a mood stabilizer of the anticonvulsant class

Lexapro - an antidepressant of the SSRI class

Librium - the first antianxiety medication of the benzodiazepine class.

Lithium (generic name) - Known more commonly by its generic name, a mood stabilizer used in treating bipolar disorder

Gerrilea Added Nov 10, 2018 - 4:28pm
-List Continued-

Lithobid (Lithium) - A trade drug of the antipsychotic drug lithium, which is a mood stabilizer used to treat bipolar disorder

Loxitane - an antipsychotic, today rarely used

Lunesta - a sleep aid

Luvox - an antidepressant of the SSRI class, often used to treat Obsessive-compulsive disorder

Mellaril - an antipsychotic, today rarely used

Namenda - used to slow the progression of Alzheimer'sDementia

Navane - an antipsychotic, today rarely used

Neurontin - an anticonvulsant (anti -seizure medication) which is sometimes used as a mood stabilizer or to treat chronic pain, particularly diabetic neuropathy

Paxil - an SSRI antidepressant, used frequently to treat depression and anxiety disorders

Phenelzine - (Nardil)-MAOIs for depression

Pristiq - an SNRI antidepressant

Prolixin - an antipsychotic

Prozac - an SSRI antidepressant

Phenobarbital- a barbiturate, sedative and hypnotic properties

Remeron - an antidepressant which is often used as a sleep aid

Reminyl - used to slow the progression of Alzheimer's Dementia

Restoril - a sleep aid of the benzodiazepine class

ReVia - alternatively known as Naltrexone

Risperdal - an "atypical" antipsychotic

Ritalin - a stimulant used to treat ADHD/ADD

Saphris - an atypical antipsychotic

Serax - anti -anxiety medication of the benzodiazepine class, often used to help during detoxification from alcohol or other drugs of abuse

Sertraline - an SSRI class anti-depressant (brand name Zoloft)

Seroquel - an "atypical" antipsychotic, sometimes is used as a sleep aid when given in low doses

Serzone- an "atypical" antidepressant

Stelazine - an older antipsychotic, today rarely used

Strattera - a non-stimulant medication used to treat ADD/ADHD

Sycrest - an atypical antipsychotic


Thorazine - an older antipsychotic, today rarely used because of the high occurrence of serious side effects

Topamax - a mood stabilizer, also used for migraine headaches

Trazodone - atypical antidepressant, most typically used now as a sleep aid

Trileptal - a mood stabilizer used to treat bipolar disorder

Valium - anti-anxiety medication of the benzodiazepine class

Vistaril - an antihistamine for the treatment of itches and irritations, an antiemetic, as a weak analgesic, an opioid potentiator, and as an anxiolytic.

Vyvanse - a stimulant used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

Wellbutrin - an antidepressant of the norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor (NDRI) class, structurally identical to Zyban, a smoking cessation ai

Xanax - an antianxiety medication of the benzodiazepine class

Zoloft - an antidepressant of the SSRI class Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor

Zyprexa - an "atypical" antipsychotic medication used in the treatment of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, and various types of dementia and /sometime
Gerrilea Added Nov 10, 2018 - 4:35pm
Troll H--- Review all the medications above.  Prescriptions for any of those are "grounds" to abrogate the 2nd A.  Sleepless? 
Committing a violent act isn't a "test". Who determines what "violence" is or how it's defined?  Shit, they're trying to encode "hate speech" as violence.
As the NYS SAFE Act was written, the doctors don't have a choice, you are denied any "due process" charges, no trial, no jury...YOU are guilty...period.
Gerrilea Added Nov 10, 2018 - 4:41pm
Here's where I got the list for the prescription drugs and the NYS Safe Act.
Troll Hunter Added Nov 10, 2018 - 5:21pm
Gerrilea:  You are a liar.  NO ONE is trying to "confiscate" your guns, and NO ONE has ever had their guns confiscated because they once took or are taking meds.  
ACTIONS will get you in trouble, and you may have your ability to own guns taken away, as you should be if you are a violent, crazy nutcase.  
Jeff Michka Added Nov 10, 2018 - 7:20pm
You hit the target, Troll Hunter...and now 'rilla sez she doesn't have firearms, but in her earlier time here she railed on her need of a gun to, basically, defend herself from the coming onslaughts of the MS13 "grand army," hiding just under the picture window in her livingroom, readying for the assualt...hmmm.  Was 'rilla not telling the truth now or then?  I had thought 'rilla was just another ERW maniac wanting everybody to have guns, regardless of who or what they are, I didn't think her as just another ERW liar, but....
Riley Brown Added Nov 10, 2018 - 10:37pm
Troll Hunter, if you are suspected of being of a mind where you might hurt yourself or others, even because other people think you're more depressed than you are, authorities will take your guns and haul you off on a 51-50.
In many places the police would rather lock up 100 people un-necessary than risk the possibility that one might do something stupid if they don't lock them up.
If you see a shrink and they come to the conclusion that you might be suicidal, they will turn you in, even if you insist that's not an issue.  There are adults who as kids got locked up for saying, "I'm going to kill myself", who can't own guns today. 
Riley Brown Added Nov 10, 2018 - 10:53pm
Troll Hunter, try to put your emotions to the side, Gerrilea is right the Fed says people who take many drugs, even medical weed, shouldn't own guns.
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the existing federal government ban on the sale of guns to medical marijuana card holders does not violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The ruling applies to nine states that fall under the court’s jurisdiction, which includes cannabis-friendly states like Nevada, California, Washington, and Oregon.
There have been many court cases over this issue, where authorities have seized guns from people they discovered had been prescribed mood altering drugs.  You may find that outrageous but there is not much that some cities havn't tried to do to separate people from their guns.  They don't need a valid reason, they just need an excuse.
Gerrilea Added Nov 11, 2018 - 1:30am
Troll H--- "Google is your friend."  I've lied about nothing.  Since I do not own firearms, I would not have them "taken".  I am, as previously stated, a transgendered woman, this alone, IN NYS, has denied me the ability to exercise the rights you enjoy.
I answered your question already.  Find another "solution" to your problem, do not abrogate the constitution doing it.
Social Security Administration Issues Final Rules Removing Beneficiaries Gun Rights
Of special note, these "new rules" include a recipient getting help paying their bills.  How many men have their wives do all their family finances?  If someone pays the bills "for you", you are denied your constitutional protections WITHOUT due process.
As the article above points out, it will effect 75,000 people each year.
YES Dearie, they are coming for the guns!  In California, if you have outstanding speeding tickets, your right to keep & bear arms is denied....ditto in Massachusetts!
So, if you don't pay your shakedown "fees", you can't exercise your rights???
Riley---Thank you for the support and the rational response. 
Gerrilea Added Nov 11, 2018 - 1:35am
Michka--- You are now lying.  Prove that I EVER said I needed a firearm to "protect myself" from any gangs, including MS13.
We have the right to keep and bear arms, the reasons one does so....ARE IMMATERIAL. 
Flying Junior Added Nov 11, 2018 - 2:05am
I posted a beautiful thoughtful comment.  You only picked up on the call for increased gun control.
You are vapid and shallow.

Gerrilea Added Nov 11, 2018 - 2:49am
Flying J---
"I don't want prayers, I want gun control!"
Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't change the fact it's still a pig.
Emotional manipulations to support your agenda.
There is nothing "vapid" or "shallow" about our constitution and the republic it created.
I like to deal in facts:
1--- The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Repeat this phrase until you understand it.
2--- Gun control has not stopped the violence humans engage in.
3--- Gun control will never stop human violence.
I know you may not understand this but I'd like to live in a society where our fellow Americans do not feel the need to own a firearm, where they'd be secure in their persons and property without resorting to violence to protect said.
The division and hatred your "democrats" have employed will result in only one thing....MORE VIOLENCE.
Try something else, perhaps basket-weaving?
Troll Hunter Added Nov 11, 2018 - 4:50am
Yes, if you are receiving SSI disability insurance for mental problems and you are too INCOMPETENT to manage your financial affairs, you should not be allowed to own or operate a deadly weapon, duh!
And, you should actually read the ENTIRE 2nd amendment.  You and Ken suffer from the same reading comprehension problems.  
Also, gun control stops GUN VIOLENCE.  Notice how other countries limit guns and don't have nearly as much GUN VIOLENCE?
Bill Kamps Added Nov 11, 2018 - 7:12am
Also, gun control stops GUN VIOLENCE.  Notice how other countries limit guns and don't have nearly as much GUN VIOLENCE?
Do any of these countries have a constitutional right to own a gun? No.   They dont just have gun control, they have very strict laws that limit who can own a gun.  There are not very many guns in those countries and high penalties for having a gun in your possession without special permission.  This not only limits the legal market, but the illegal one as well.  
You are making a false equivalence.
Gun control, when you have a constitutional right to own guns, is only working at the problem around the edges.  We have so many legal guns in the country, that any person planning on killing a large number of people, can get a gun.  Therefore gun control in the US, will have limited effect. 
A large number of legal guns, a constitutional right to own a gun, makes the illegal market an easy one to acquire a gun. 
If you have a constitutional right to own guns, you will have a lot of guns in the country, and more gun deaths.   Just like having lots of cars on the road results in more auto deaths.  Its just the law of numbers. 
Troll Hunter Added Nov 11, 2018 - 7:23am
Yes, that is correct.  That is why I am 100% anti-gun.  Also, severe limits on guns equals less gun violence.  That is important to me, and I don't care about your precious right to own one.  Humans trump guns in my book.
Bill Kamps Added Nov 11, 2018 - 8:26am
Troll, I dont own guns, just fyi. 
I would in fact agree there are people who own guns, who arent mentally stable enough to own them, in my opinion.  These are not necessarily the clinically mentally ill.  They could just be the angry guy who drinks too much, or someone who is just an irresponsible person.  Nothing I can do about it, stupid dumb people have a right to own a gun.
I recognize we have a Constitution.  To do what you want, would require a change to the Constitution, which you have a right to advocate.  There is no other practical way to limit guns in the US. 
We were given the right to own guns, so we dont wind up like Venezuela.  The government there has ruined the country, stolen the ballot box, and is starving and imprisoning the people.  How can they do this? because the government has the guns and the people dont.  So it is rocks vs guns if the people challenge the government.  Totalitarian states can only exist if people dont have guns. 
You may disagree on this right, it is your right of course.  Yes there is a price to be paid for this right.  Difficult to know how many fewer people would die, if guns were not generally available.  Some of those 10K killed annually with guns, would be killed other ways, and some probably not.  We allow 35K people to be killed annually on highways in car wrecks, and we think this is an acceptable trade off for having cars.  Life is full of trade offs.  It is not a prefect world.
Let's just stop pretending that better or different laws will affect the gun violence we see.  If you want to turn the US gun situation into Norway, then  you need a change of the Constitution.   Mental health exams, background checks, other laws, wont change the situation.   You are wasting you time advocating these. 
George N Romey Added Nov 11, 2018 - 9:11am
Guns will never be banned from the US. Never. What should happen are laws that might actually work like limiting military assault style weapons. Background checks. Some of these laws are on the books but not enforced.
Psychological tests are not the panacea people think. Psychopaths can easily evade the tests and there is no standard definition of crazy. 
Bill Kamps Added Nov 11, 2018 - 9:48am
George, do you think these kinds of laws will stop the  mass shootings?
I think they help at the  margins at best.  If someone is planning on killing a large number of people, they can find a gun, legally or otherwise. 
Riley Brown Added Nov 11, 2018 - 10:23am
Troll Hunter, you said, and I quote"Notice how other countries limit guns and don't have nearly as much GUN VIOLENCE?".
If you are basing part of your beliefs on that correlation you need to  look at the bigger picture because taking guns away from people in civilized countries does not reduce the number of homicides or suicides; other people have illustrated that well in other forums.
By that same way of thinking I could say more guns reduce the number of suicides, and use the US and Japan as my proof.  It's true the US has much lower suicide rates and lots of guns, Japan high suicide rates and almost no guns. 
However if you look at the bigger picture, suicide rates aren't actually related to the number of guns, or even how available they are, places like the UK and Australia have proven that.
In both those countries authorities have separated most citizens from their guns and if you compare the suicide and homicide rates for years prior to the bans, and to the years since the bans, suicide and homicide rates were not reduced when the guns were taken away. 
The reason why I say YEARS is because suicide and homicide rates cycle in the short term like the stock market, and there are lots of biased statistics that cherry pick shorter term studies that  appear to show trends in both directions.  To be fair you have to look at the long term numbers.  In the UK long term homicide numbers have actually gone UP since the gun bans, they are now worse than in New York.  No they are blaming knives and banning them too.  Eventually they will realize it's not the tool but the culture, people who want to murder each other have never needed a gun, they are just as effective with other weapons.
Gerrilea Added Nov 11, 2018 - 4:49pm
Troll H--- Others in this thread have politely explained the full meaning and terms of the 2nd A.  Many of you gun-grabbers get lost in the woods with the term, "regulate".  At the time of the writing of said amendment, "well-regulated" meant, "in good working order".  Our gov't can train citizens that are the militia.  The 1st Militia Act required all "militia" show up for training AND to bring their own weapons so that they could be properly trained to defend the nation.
Moving on, I find your term "gun violence" to be disingenuous.  Do you want to save lives?  I do. Why do you not join the rest of us in formulating policies that will save millions, not just a few thousand???
Wait, I forget, you don't want there to be millions of us. Obviously the more people, the less you are able to control them.  That's the goal, isn't it?
How do we control the masses?  Your answer, get rid of them, to paraphrase you, "...and cap population size....." But to do that, you need the guns first.
I understand, honest.
Wink , Wink....
FacePalm Added Nov 11, 2018 - 8:19pm
Bill Kamps-
i noticed your use of the phrase "we were given the right to own a gun" earlier, right?
If you believe it's the 2A that does so, you need to check well as the understanding you have of the purposes of the Constitution.
What the Constitution does is forbid sworn general government actors from infringing on your right to have any kind of arms whatsoever.
If you read any of the Founding Fathers on the subject, they were quite certain that Our Rights come from Our Creator(which is what makes them unalienable), and no magistrate, no man, no body of men - and no piece of paper.  They believed (as do i) that our Rights long preceded the writing of the Constitution, and will long outlast it, precisely because the right to defend yourself against tyrants of all stripes does not come from Man at all, but from Nature and Nature's God.
If you believe a piece of paper gave you your rights, then another piece can take them away.  The French have a saying:  "Constitutions are made of paper; bayonets are made of steel."
You should also note that the 2nd guarantees that gov't actors may not take ANY arms whatseover, as long as you're a peaceable Citizen.  This can and does include rail guns, lasers, microwave-burst arms, particle beam weapons, or anything else one can dream up or be inspired by.  Not just "guns."  Arms.  Items with which one might defend themselves.
On another thread, TH confessed to liking to start trouble with people that LOOK like Nazis to him, including spilling a drink on them then punching them out then stealing their wallets(allegedly, to turn over to the FBI).  Anyone who has a firearm handy and would object to being assaulted and robbed would naturally be able to easily defend themselves against that kind of thuggish behavior, so of course, he wouldn't want anyone to have firearms.
Gerrilea Added Nov 11, 2018 - 11:38pm
FacePalm-- I've come to the conclusion that TrollHunter is Flying J or the like....a paid disinformation agent sent out to push a specific agenda and to stop legitimate public discourse.  They need to control the narrative to create their dystopian society. 
If you pay attention, you'll see the same arguments and same M.O. on various sites and blogs.  Almost the same "talking points", same ad homimens, same wording.
I see through it, I just hope others do as well.
As I stated previously, I've never owned a firearm and I truly desire to live in a society where my fellow Americans don't feel the need to own a firearm to protect themselves or others.  But reality is, our government cannot AND will not protect us when the time comes.
In fact, the more I live, the less I want our government around. Leave us alone and let us live.  Let them go stand guard at the border.
Jim Stoner Added Nov 12, 2018 - 1:11am
In a civilized country, people do not need guns for self-protection.  The responsibility for public safety lies with trusted authorities (police, government, etc.)  The USA has never been civilized; private, extralegal gun violence has been endemic since its earliest days.  One could argue that some of these guns were necessary on the ever-expanding frontier, but that is long gone. 
The argument that one needs guns to protect oneself from the USA government is specious, paranoid, and totally flawed:  if the government were truly after you, you would be toast, however well-armed.  Think of the Symbionese Liberation Army, the wackos in Waco, etc. 
The question is whether the USA will ever be civilized.  The answer is, yes, when it wants to be, but I see no consensus yet to tackle the question in a meaningful way, and there are too many guns out there already.   Just know that my hatred of the actions of the leadership of the NRA has no bounds.  They are evil people, responsible for deaths beyond count.  
Thomas Sutrina had a good suggestion  " Teach the citizens respect for human life. "  I agree totally with that, it would be a good suggestion for the US educational stystem, though the rest of the comment was total insanity. 
And Bill H.  There has been a great deal done about auto safety; there are less deaths than 50 years ago, though passenger miles have tripled.  
Gerrilea Added Nov 12, 2018 - 2:00am
Jim Stoner---- ROFL.  You really don't follow/know our laws or our Supreme Court & the decisions they've made.
When you present garbage like this:
"The argument that one needs guns to protect oneself from the USA government is specious, paranoid, and totally flawed:  if the government were truly after you, you would be toast, however well-armed.  Think of the Symbionese Liberation Army, the wackos in Waco, etc."
It must be a joke, really.
Here, let me bring you up to speed.
In Castle Rock v Gonzales, 2005: the US Supreme Court decided that their is no constitutional duty for the police to protect us EVEN IF state law mandates it!
In Heien v North Carolina, 2014: the US Supreme Court stated the police do not have to know the law. They can arrest you WITHOUT breaking a law.
First off, I never said I needed to protect myself FROM my government or I need a firearm for ANY legitimate reason.  We have the unalienable right to keep and bear arms....the purpose, desire or intent are IMMATERIAL.
Our government declared. in 2005, they have NO DUTY to protect us.  AFTER WE GAVE THEM FUCKING BILLIONS IN OUR TAX DOLLARS!
If they won't, who does???
They went on to claim that they don't need a law to arrest us. Obama declared he can target ANY American, anywhere in the world for execution WITHOUT charges, judge, jury or a conviction.
Are there legitimate dangers against We The People and the New American Police State, Inc that has been created around us?
Yes, but that's another completely separate topic.
As for the false/fake term, "civilized society"....Pshaw!
Our "civilized society" prosecutes people feeding the homeless!
Our "civilized society" IS currently carpet bombing 6 nations!
Our "civilized society" prosecutes AND jails a homeless mother for "stealing" an education for her son for 5 years!
Our "civilized society" installed puppet dictators that went on to slaughter millions!
Our "civilized society" INTENTIONALLY created poverty!
Our "civilized society" allows 196,000 to die each year FROM the poverty they created!
Pluease NEVER AGAIN bring up the term 'civilized society", it's meaningless Orwellian Doublespeak to distract those that don't understand the facts.
Jim Stoner Added Nov 12, 2018 - 11:30am
Gerrilea,  You must not have been reading very carefully.  It wasn't just implied, I said it very straightforwardly:  the USA is not a civilized society.  I have hope that it may become one, but we're a long way from that. 
As for the question about whether people need guns to protect them from 'the gummint', the point is, they are useless for that purpose.   The government's powers go way beyond some piddly infantry rifles, and having the guns will just confirm to them the need to bring in the heavy shit. 
Gerrilea Added Nov 12, 2018 - 12:08pm
Jim S--- So the US isn't civilized because we have an unalienable right to own arms?
You might want to review what "rebels" in caves did to the Soviets in Afghanistan and then years later to the US military.
Asymmetric warfare and guerilla attacks work.
And why do you keep trying to equate owning arms to "fighting the gummint"???
Who said anything about that besides you?
Jim Stoner Added Nov 12, 2018 - 12:59pm
The US isn't civilized because it isn't civilized.  The level of deaths from gun violence is evidence that what I say is true.  The argument that people need guns to protect themselves from other civilians is more evidence.  The notion--many here follow it--that guns help protect US citizens from tyranny is sheer nonsense, so I debunked it.  I don't recommend the methods of the rebels in Afghanistan as a model for our future behavior (and they were an organized, commanded force, not individuals).  That is a red herring.
Try paying attention to what I am writing.   
As for the Second Amendment, If you want to carry a gun, join the National Guard--that's my interpretation of it.  I am definitely one in favor of repealing the Second Amendment--in the meantime, I will give my full support to those organizations trying to reduce the harm its interpretation--forced by the NRA's lobbying power for gun manufacturers, and supported by an extremist Supreme Court majority--is causing in this country.  
Gerrilea Added Nov 12, 2018 - 1:20pm
Jim S--- I am paying attention to your false narrative, I wanted to be sure I understood and I asked further questions.
"Gun" deaths makes the US "uncivilized, got it.
The Taliban "controlled" Afghanistan for just over 5 yrs.  In that time they created a standing army? ROFL, great "debunking".  Your opinion is not fact, but hey go for it.
You can "interpret" the 2nd A as you desire but since history and rule of law IS what this nation is built on, your "interpretation" is meaningless, flawed and false.
If you want to amend the constitution, Article V awaits your utilization, go for it.  Get back to me when you have a snowballs chance in hell of ever accomplishing it.
Tilt at your windmills, I'll get the popcorn.
Jim Stoner Added Nov 12, 2018 - 2:24pm
The strategy is to magnify, not minimize or normalize, these events proving how uncivilized our society is.  Gradually people will realize that this is not working, then the momentum will build and it can be repealed very quicky.  Look at the repeal of prohibition for a model.  Hey, it used to be beyond the pale to argue for the abolition of slavery, the vote for women, "marriage equality", and legalization of marijuana.  Now these things are accepted. 
This nation is built upon people, not history and rule of law.  People decided rule of law should govern, and the implicit social contract is that we will be protected from the war of all against all.
I support the forces of order in enforcing the law--when it is just.  When it is unjust, it should be changed.  It is unjust when people who are unarmed and trust in the rule of law and authority are confronted with people bearing arms--those designed exclusively for the purpose of killing other people-- whose intentions are unknown (but the use of those "tools" is unambiguous).  I trust in most people's goodwill, but exhibiting their killing machines undermines that trust. 
Jim Stoner Added Nov 12, 2018 - 2:28pm
To get back to the original topic, I would argue that every single instance of mass murder is prima facie evidence of mental illness.  So, yes, trying to address the access to guns by mentally ill people makes sense, to the degree it can be accomplished.  I don't see much effort in that regard. 
Jim Stoner Added Nov 12, 2018 - 2:44pm
Gerrilea--one more thing--you wrote:  "I know you may not understand this but I'd like to live in a society where our fellow Americans do not feel the need to own a firearm, where they'd be secure in their persons and property without resorting to violence to protect said."  
I agree entirely with this sentiment.  I do not understand your intended path toward achieving that objective.  I am doing what I can, miserably insufficient as it is.  I am pretty sure that the answer is not more guns, and more lethal guns, in the hands of private citizens. 
FacePalm Added Nov 13, 2018 - 12:30am
Tell me what you would do if, say, a solar flare took out the electrical grid by frying all electronics, and a month later, crazed, starving individuals decided to go house-to-house, stealing whatever food they could find - how would you defend your food and supplies that you gathered against them, or would you willingly surrender them and join the ranks of the starving?  Would you also willingly surrender your wife/children to be raped and tortured?  No?  Then how are you going to stop them?  A baseball bat?  A steak knife?
Or suppose instead of a mob that came around to steal, it was USG agents in armored vehicles, who claimed that because of the "emergency," the Constitution and rule of law were out the window, and their oaths meant nothing? (certain EO's state precisely this point, btw., that the president may: "seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."  Not Constitutional, right?)
Edmund Burke said:
"There is no safety for honest men but by believing all possible evil of evil men."
Patrick Henry said:
 "Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Are you one of those who thinks that only police and military should have firearms?  If so, you'd be an ally of the vast majority of dictators on this planet, starting perhaps with one you're likely to be quite unaware of:
“The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of arms. The possession of these elements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues, and tends to permit uprising. Therefore, the heads of provinces, official agents, and deputies are ordered to collect all the weapons mentioned above and turn them over to the government.”
— Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Shogun, August 29, 1558, Japan.
Please take note of the date.
Those who have arms in their possession and know how to use them have a chance; those without arms can either die or surrender - and those who surrender usually suffer for a long time before being allowed to die.
Gerrilea Added Nov 13, 2018 - 1:35am
Jim S--- Wow, the talking points of the regressive left. You see, the more laws you pass, the more criminals we'll have.  Does that bring us to a future where people will feel secure in their lives & with their property?

The "social compact" we agreed to is contained within the US Constitution.  Article V awaits it's utilization, if you want to fundamentally change that "compact".
As for my proposals to bring us closer to the future I desire is as follows:
1-- End the faux drug war. 
2-- Release all non-violent drug "offenders" and provide them with a home for the crime we committed against them.  Give them a stake in this society as free men/women.
3-- Fund mental health services like our lives depend on it.
4-- End the for-profit Prison Industrial Complex.
5-- Legalize all drugs and end the DEA.
6-- Rebuild our Police Forces into "peace officers" and not "law enforcement".
7-- Stop giving local Police the "tools" of war.
8-- Ban Outcome Based Education, rebranded as "No Child Left Behind". 
9-- Restore childcare and discipline to Parents. Do not prosecute them if they spank their own children. 
10-- Teach children respect for family, themselves and others. Teach them peace, not war. Teach them critical logical thinking.
We didn't get to this point overnight, it took generations to strip down our values and our mores.
Gerrilea Added Nov 13, 2018 - 1:47am
FaceP-- Great quotes and historical examples.  I loved the book Shogun.  If I recall correctly, the reason they learned how to use their own hands, body and feet as deadly weapons WAS because they were not allowed to own any "arms".  Only the Shogun and his warriors were allowed to be armed. And didn't the Shogun engage in a military coup that overthrew the Japanese Monarchy?
Jim Stoner Added Nov 13, 2018 - 2:40am
Gerrilea--I agree with you on 1-6 and 10.  7 makes no sense given your attitude toward guns in general--you want everyone to have a gun except the police?  8 is actually just anti-education, so no; 9 is nonsense--I have never heard of anybody being prosecuted for spanking their own children.  You are probably thinking of cases when teachers or school officials have been penalized for striking students, a more complex situation.  
The answer to your Japan question is complicated:  the Monarchy was maintained and venerated, but (prior to the US incursion) the Shogun (and his forces) was the enforcer of the law.
FacePalm:  I don't need to answer your bizarre hypotheticals.  I have two baseball bats (in different locations in my home) and I know how to swing them to full effect.  I would join with my community to defend it if public order was not being maintained by my government. 
I have had a full life and am not afraid, but I don't want to die because of some random nutjob who has decides to solve his social/mental problems (all mass murderers are men) with a gun and finds it the easiest way out. 
I am not a fan of hunting but I accept the use of hunting rifles as an endeavor others can do, within local laws.  (Of course, they should have a hunting license.)
Here's what I support: Background checks with waiting periods for all gun sales except hunting rifles, pellet guns.  I am very much opposed to the manufacture and sale of handguns except for police and other trained, licensed professionals who need their use.  AR-15, M-1, AK-47, and high-capacity magazines should be banned from civilian use (then they can be banned from police use) and confiscated if necessary. 
You're damned right these would make a difference--and guess what?  Most Americans agree with me on these, and I am a gun control voter.  Someone who's stupid or insane enough to argue that the solution to out-of-control gun violence is more guns will never get my vote, no matter what else they may have to offer. 
FacePalm Added Nov 13, 2018 - 5:44am
To reiterate a previous point: there's no such thing as "gun violence."  There are insane people who get guns and use them to commit violent acts.
Your baseball bat will be useless against anyone with a semi-auto pistol; you'll be disabled or dead long before you can swing it to effect.
If you're on the side of people NOT gov't agents having access to arms of all kinds, you're a Constitutionalist, a liberty-lover.  Awesome; welcome aboard!  If you're on the side of those who think ONLY police or military should be armed, you're on the side of totalitarian nightmare enforcers like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Idi Amin, the Turks who disarmed Armenians before slaughtering them, and Pol Pot.  Congrats!  You're a totalitarian nutbar.
i don't agree with background checks at all, especially if they're run by gov't agents, many of whom may have a globalist agenda to disarm as many as possible.
What i support is the testimony of at least 3 close neighbors who've known the one who wants a firearm for at least 5 years, preferably more, who vouch for his or her character and stability.  Leaving the decision in the hands of some faceless bureaucrat is not consistent with Liberty or it's principles, especially when they've already sworn fealty to the Constitution as a condition of office, but know they won't be prosecuted for lying under that Oath.
I reiterate; there are scenarios where extended magazines and rapid-fire weaponry are quite advisable, like if you're bum-rushed by a group.  Most people who have these or can make them ain't sayin' and ain't complyin' with gun grabbers.
If you want to take them, you've declared yourself an enemy of Liberty and the principles this country was founded on. 
As stated earlier, much of what leftist/liberals say they want from America already exists: free food, free housing, free medical care, safety from being shot - all these exist in many American prisons...and many other prisons, worldwide:
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty... and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer?
Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."
-- Cesare Beccaria, (1735-1794) [Bonesana, Marchese di] Italian nobleman, criminologist, and penal reformer
Source: Dei delitti e delle pene, [On Crimes and Punishments] ch.38 (1764)
Translation is as quoted by Thomas Jefferson in his Commonplace Book.
If you want safety from "gun violence" as a primary consideration, perhaps you should consider moving to a country which already has far more restrictive laws concerning gun ownership than in America, like Mexico or Brazil - oops!  Their gun homicide rates are FAR higher than in the U.S. 
So maybe you should at least seek employment in a prison...nah, you'd probably need to have arms of some kind, so i guess incarceration would be the way to go.
i agree with Gerrilea; if you want to change the Supreme Law, follow the procedures outlined in Article 5, and good luck getting 3/4's of the State legislatures to agree with the theft of Americans' liberty to defend themselves from bullies of all stripes, whether street thugs or bullies with badges.
If you want some court to rule against the 2nd Amendment, or find some politician to side with you on this issue, good luck with that; they're already pledged to give allegiance to the Constitution AS IT IS, so any attempt to remove the 2nd would be primae facie evidence of felony perjury, i.e. violation of their Oaths of Office, a High Crime.
FacePalm Added Nov 13, 2018 - 5:56am
i believe i read Shogun many years ago; my memory is saying "James Clavell" as author, but it could be wrong.  In any case, i don't recall the Shogun overthrowing the monarchy, or even if that ever happened IRL.  i know that many authors use historical facts and weave their fictional narratives around them - Michener was a good example of this - but i have no idea as to the historical accuracy of Clavell.
Gerrilea Added Nov 13, 2018 - 10:20am
Jim S--- Finally, we can agree on some things. 
#6, on my list is: training C.O.P.'s or Citizen On Patrol, into deescalation and peace duties, not Law Enforcement.  As a Peace Officer, they'll have no need for firearms, mace, handcuffs and a constitution.  We The People are the ultimate authority in this nation, not our servants. So, yes, only allow citizens to possess firearms.  There is one huge exception, our military, when called into service.
You have an unusual idea that you must "meet force with force" when you reference my #7.  It goes along with #6, our Police are not a supposed to be a standing army, which is exactly what they've become.  They are not a war with us.  So they don't need tanks or military training.  Why the hell do Social Security employees have weapons? Why do IRS agents? Why do National Park Employees need weapons?  70 Federal Agencies have armed agents.
Get rid of them.
As for ending "Outcome Based Education" IS how we move forward.  YOU need to understand what they've done to our children and this nation using that "model".  As John Taylor Gatto, educator from NYC explains, its Pavlovian conditioning which, in turns, creates sociopaths.
Re-educate yourself on the problems this nation faces.  The gun didn't do it.
And yes Jim, there are thousands of examples of parents being prosecuted for spanking their children.  Google is your friend.  Parents have been removed from the equation, the almighty State is the caregiver and disciplinarian.  NO more!
As for your statement here:
I am very much opposed to the manufacture and sale of handguns except for police and other trained, licensed professionals who need their use. 
You really don't understand stare decisis or our constitutional system of law.  YOU cannot ban handguns, period.  You can try for the "assault rifles" and their accessories but handguns, the Supreme Court has made clear, cannot be banned.
Gerrilea Added Nov 13, 2018 - 10:24am
Facepalm--- I'm pretty sure Japan became a military dictatorship back in the 1100's AD and the Shogun was how they did it.
Yes, James Clavell wrote the book, Shogun...the one I own and came to love.
Thank you for your great points and discussion on the effects and position of what "gun grabbers" actually want to create here in this nation.
Gerrilea Added Nov 13, 2018 - 11:08am
Jim S--- Can you not understand what's wrong with this:
I would join with my community to defend it if public order was not being maintained by my government.
That kind of thinking is what gave rise to the likes of the KKK.  Since "order wasn't being maintained", mobs took to the streets and "cleaned them up".
We've come full circle, it seems.  Antifa is employing similar tactics that the KKK did.  Mob rule is the antithesis of our Constitutional Republic, so it doesn't matter how many "Americans" agree with you.
What's your definition of "maintaining order"???
Rusty Smith Added Nov 13, 2018 - 11:09am
No one wants mentally unstable people who might decide to shoot their neighbors running around with guns, but up to now there has never been a way to tell who is that dangerous.
We know hundreds of thousands of people consider suicide at some time in their lives, and if they talk about it or share those thoughts with a therapist they can be placed a 51-50 hold.  Those frequently turn into lifetime bans for guns just because there aren't enough resources to release them quickly, even if they are really ok.  Even if they were so despondent over the something like the murder of a child or spouse that they did consider suicide, it's not fair or even rational to ban their firearm ownership for life because those types of life events don't make them more dangerous for life.
In some states they have tried looking over medication records for evidence of past instability that they could use as EVIDENCE to take away guns.  In some states having a medical pot license removes your right to own guns, even if the person has never used it to obtain a form of pot that makes them high.  How long will it take before they decided anyone who's used Alcoholic Beverages is also unfit to own a gun?
I'm not suggesting we do nothing, but have no doubt, whatever you do will be abused by the anti gun folks to take guns away from citizens who don't deserve to lose that right and never were a threat.
Jim Stoner Added Nov 13, 2018 - 1:19pm
Spanking:  here is the pertinent quote from a non-partisan legal reference site
Currently, parents in all states have a limited right to spank their children. Courts have decided that parents have a constitutional right to raise their children as they see fit, including using whatever method of discipline they think is best. Whether by statute or by legal opinion, states permit parents to use physical discipline against their children as long as it is done in moderation and does not cause injury.
So, unless you overdo it, it is permitted. 
I admit I fell into FacePalm's trap and answered his stupid hypotheticals, after saying I wouldn't.  That's why I made the comment about standing with my community to defend it against a mob if the sheriff's office needed to deputize me.  I'd probably use a bow-and-arrow, I'm pretty good with that.   As for the baseball bat, I'm not trying to win an arms race to defend my home--I would use guile and my superior knowledge of the terrain. And no surrender; that would take many criminals by surprise, they want it to be easy.  (Thieves have their own rules; by their thinking, if your door is unlocked, they are justified in breaking in, if you're not around.)
Just as there are extremist pro-gun people who feel any change--any at all--will inevitably cause sliding down a slippery slope until the government takes all guns, I am on the other side of the issue, and I know it.  Say whatever you want, I am against your having your war machines in private life and I will fight all the way, against all odds. 
I am not a justice authoritarian at all--I think our legal system is full of injustice, and I am nauseated at all the cops-and-robbers fascination in this society--but I take the police's side on this issue of arms.  With all the heavily-armed nutjobs out there (some on this site, probably) and criminals possessed illegally of weapons (usually originating from the nearby state with the weakest controls), police need to have sufficient force to defeat them, if it comes to a shootout.  This is not to endorse the wave of purchasing tanks, APC's, artillery, and other nonsense that they were allowed to do after 2001, supposedly to defeat terrorists.  That, of course, is way over the line.  
Jim Stoner Added Nov 13, 2018 - 1:29pm
Oh, and here is how you begin to end the manufacture of handguns in the US:  repeal the legal immunity to gun manufacturers' liability, which should never have been provided in the first place.   A few multi-million dollar lawsuits will be a good deterrent; then, among other things, they will stop promoting the idea (directly, and through their friendly websites and lobbying activities) that people need to have a handgun and carry it concealed all the time.  It's a harmful consumer product, like cigarettes.  (Think of how often people shoot themselves in the groin with their concealed handguns; I don't generally find amusement in others' misfortune, but that one makes me laugh.)
You don't need to change the constitution. 
Rusty Smith Added Nov 13, 2018 - 2:10pm
Jim Stoner all the lawsuits in the world would just do to guns what we've already done to many other products, US manufacturers would go out of business, or relocated to other countries, and we'd import all the guns we want.
Is that what you really want?
FacePalm Added Nov 13, 2018 - 9:46pm
Well, Jim, as long as you've never sworn an oath of fealty to the Constitution, you're fine with expressing your opinion to go unarmed.  OTOH, if you ever served in the military or took any job where you HAD to swear an Oath as a condition of employment, your stance will be seen as what it is: Oath-breaking, felony perjury.  A criminal offense, maybe many of them.
The trouble comes when your ideas gain the force of law. 
The control and elimination of personal defense weaponry is high up on the agenda of the UN and the wealthy sob's who want to impose the 'China model' on the entire planet, which is why they want so desperately to take down America, and eliminate even the IDEA that Rights are the gift of God, as well as the idea of a SERVANT government.  They want to be masters.
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
-- Daniel Webster(1782-1852), US Senator

You may recall that America was designed to be an experiment in SELF-government, thereby obviating the need for tyranny, however:
"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."
~Patrick Henry
The PtB were well aware of this weakness, and repeatedly exploited it in order to undermine our Constitutional Republic.
Have you ever read the 45 Communist goals for America?  They've largely succeeded in the goals Patrick Henry partially outlines above, in the negative sense.
But the Soviets and other forms of governance spun off from them were financed by the PtB; they're just tools toward the establishment of the ultimate totalitarian nightmare, the NWO/OWG, long planned for, now frustrated by Trump's strong opposition.
Gerrilea Added Nov 14, 2018 - 11:08am
Jim S-- Holding gun manufacturers liable because someone used their product in an illegal manner is batshit crazy talk.
Let's be clear here, your goal is to disarm as many Americans as possible because you will not face the reality the society we exist in glorifies and rewards violence.  It creates sociopaths through our incorrectly labeled "educational system" and teaches violence 1st.
The reason they have protections IS because the gun-grabbers tried your move and Congress stopped it.

Here, from NPR:
"In 2000, for example, New York City joined 30 counties and cities in suing gun manufacturers, saying manufacturers should have been making their products safer and also better tracking where their products were sold."
Yes, gun manufactures can be sued for defects in design or production BUT not because someone used their product in a manner you don't like or is illegal, as in killing someone.
The final analysis is clear, you want to ban guns and you'll do anything you can think of to attain that goal EXCEPT changing the constitution.
In the meantime, people will still be dying because you won't join us in doing things that will save lives.  I gave you my list of things we can do RIGHT NOW.
Rusty Smith Added Nov 14, 2018 - 12:22pm
Gerrilea a sword is inherently dangerous because you can die if you fall on it, so is a knife.  Gun companies that made revolvers before the industry invented safeties have been sued for not having safeties on their revolvers.  Cities like LA have been trying to make laws that would forbid the sale of guns that don't incorporate electronic safeties that prevent unauthorized people from using them, despite the fact that none exist that are good enough to be used by any police department anywhere in the world.  
The people who want to take away all the guns know no bounds, they are in favor of any new law that takes them in that direction or helps put American gun manufacturers out of business.
Gerrilea Added Nov 14, 2018 - 12:28pm
Rusty S--- What's clear, they really don't want to save lives, period.
FacePalm Added Nov 14, 2018 - 5:38pm
It's well established by hundreds of interviews with prisoners who committed assaults, robberies and thefts that they deliberately target people they think are unarmed - in perfect accord with the earlier citation of Cesar Baccaria as recorded in Jefferson's "Commonplace" book.
Then, too, there's this:
"In March, 1982, Kennesaw, Georgia, passed a mandatory gun ownership ordinance which requires all heads of households to own a firearm -- handgun, rifle or shotgun. In 1982, our crime against persons, which include murder, rape, armed robbery, aggravated assault and residential burglary, decreased 74%. In 1983 these same crimes decreased [an additional] 46%. ... I would also like you to be aware that our population has increased in excess of 20% since 1982. We have had no accidents nor incidents involving our citizens with regards to firearms. ... It is a pleasure to see our senior citizens strolling the streets at night without fear of becoming a victim of violent crime."
-- Robert L. Ruble, Chief of Police, Kennesaw, Georgia
Source: November 5, 1984, unpublished letter to Ann Landers

And this happens EVERY place where it's made known that the Citizens are armed.  It's not an isolated incidence.  Where CRIMINALS are armed, and law-abiding Citizens are forbidden from owning them, you get South Side of Chicago...and other places.
Gerrilea Added Nov 15, 2018 - 1:28am
FaceP--- Thank you for reminding me about that stat, I completely forgot about Kennesaw, Georgia.  An armed society is a polite society.
All the years of them claiming that if everyone was armed, the streets would run red with blood.  One city in Georgia established the exact opposite.
And proving my point, Zero Hedge has a new article up on overdose deaths. They've surpassed all deaths from guns, auto accidents and suicides.
They (gun-grabbers) could care less about those deaths!  Hell, they've said it, they want less of us anyways.
And you know, Congress could stop them immediately.  Wait, doesn't Big Pharma pay them billions to protect their racket? 
Okay, never mind.
Shit, let's ban all the AK-47's and the like... we might save a few hundred people a year.
Jim Stoner Added Nov 15, 2018 - 2:07am
Gerrilea, You are such a contradiction--a constitutionalist anarchist.  Yeah, disarm the police and arm the citizenry--I'm sure those Peace Officers will be very effective in the midst of a shootout. 
It would be a survivalist state--join up with your kin/gang or die.  All in the name of "protecting property rights".  Did you ever hear of the range war in the late Old West?--Hollywood couldn't stop making films about it for awhile.  
Sounds great--Make America Feudal Again!  /s
I already agreed with you about the drug thing--so why are you beating up on this poor little gun-grabber about that extraneous topic?
Rusty Smith Added Nov 15, 2018 - 10:54am
When they take away guns the homicides and suicides per year don't drop unless of course you're an anti gun nut who only counts homicides and suicides INVOLVING guns...  Then they do but they are equally offset by an equal number of homicides and suicides that don't involve guns.
If we got rid of all our bridges the number of people who commit suicide by jumping off bridges would go way down, but that wouldn't stop them from jumping off buildings, or hanging themselves.
If you don't have a hammer, anything hard and heavy can be used for the same purpose.  If a thug doesn't have a gun, a knife can be used to do the same thing.
Gerrilea Added Nov 15, 2018 - 11:42am
Jim S--- Sorry, I missed this part:
"I already agreed with you about the drug thing..."
Hummm...was I all caught up in my logical and reasoned position that I missed you coming to the table in good faith???
If so, sorry....honest. 
As for being a constitutional anarchist...I do like the sounds of that....but no, I don't see my position that least the "anarchist" part anyways.
Yes, we must follow that "social" & "legal" compact we all agreed upon, until a super-majority of us give our assent to change it. It's the "reinterpretation" of said "damn piece of paper" that has brought us to this moment.  Man against woman, child against parent, old against young, race against race and rich against poor.
Our government created these conditions, they sure as hell will never fix them BECAUSE they'd lose control if they let us live in peace together.  We'd come to realize, we don't need them for that much.
I totally support legitimate regulations that keep us safe from fraud, predatory banking & corporate malfeasance, etc.  
As an example, I was reviewing the billions my State is going to give fucking's criminal.
Alas, I digress.  The whole point is we truly can save lives, the gun issue....let it will only serve to galvanize more Americans into hating each other from extreme positions.
I'd love to see Americans being taught how to defend themselves with the tools we have available.  We used to have school training for firearms.  Hundreds of lives can be saved if people understood & were trained to safely store and handle them.
Teaching generations to fear hurts us all.
Rusty S-- That's exactly what the lie about:
"...but they are equally offset by an equal number of homicides and suicides that don't involve guns..."
Australia & The UK found that out but they keep claiming they are "more civilized" than we are and similar nonsense.
Rusty Smith Added Nov 15, 2018 - 1:55pm
The UK might want to rethink that "more civilized" part over again, since they got rid of their guns theri homicide rates have been increasing and now are worse than New York's rate.
I know people who live there and I don't think they care, they are so anti gun that they wouldn't give people back their guns even if they knew it would lower the homicide rate.  They just hate guns.
Jim Stoner Added Nov 15, 2018 - 2:47pm
Thanks, Gerrilea.  Peace be unto you all. 
Bill Added Nov 28, 2018 - 4:31pm
"Currently there are no laws which stipulate that a person needs to take a psychological test to see if they are competent enough to responsibly purchase, own, and/or transfer firearms.
Do you think there should be tests of this sort?"
Not unless you change our entire Constitution and system of law.  Rights may only be denied by Due Process, or voluntarily surrendered, and only on an individual, not group, basis - and in the case of Due Process only if the person is convicted of a particular crime for which the punishment specifies relinquishment of that Right or judged to be mentally incompetent and becomes a Ward of the State in some fashion.
The question is always, "who decides who is fit?"  The answer is clear in the entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment, which is in turn made clear in the writings of that Amendment's authors.  The purpose of 2A isn't for self defense, which the authors felt to be self-evident.  The purpose is to guarantee the people the right to bear sufficient arms to depose our government if they get out of line.  This is why most anti-gun laws are dishonest on the face of them, seeking to disarm the many for the crimes of the few.  One or a dozen people marching on Washington with guns are nuts; one or a dozen MILLION people marching on Washington are citizens exercising their god-given right to "change or abolish" their government.  Of obvious note should be the fact that millions of NRA members have never marched armed on Washington, but that will never be mentioned in the MSM...
The price of a free society is always paid in blood.  Guns make it easier to kill, and there are doubtless a few deaths which happened each year because a gun was handy which MIGHT not otherwise have happened.  However the converse is also true - MANY deaths are prevented each year because someone was armed. 
THAT entire debate is a red herring.  If we want to consider repeal of 2A, the discussion should center on whether as a society we have become so secure in our belief of the everlasting beneficence of big government that we all agree government should be the only ones with guns.
With Trump in office, if phrased that way I would think a whole lot of lefties would rapidly become 2A converts with the roaring choros of, "Not only no, but HELL no!"....