Results 49 to 60 of 128
Thread: Suggs and Guns
-
12-11-2012, 12:56 PM #49Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
Re: Suggs and Guns
Not sure how you would implement a psychiatric screening for potential gun owners, or how that would even be effective.
I know in Texas, if you have a diagnosed condition and you were confined to a mental health facility or eligible to be confined to one, you can't get a gun. I believe 30 or so other states have similar laws. If you're referring to those type of restrictions, I agree with you and they are already in place.
But are you suggesting potential gun owners actually sit down and speak with a mental health professional prior to buying a gun? If so, that's incredibly burdensome and wholly ineffective.
Mentally unstable folks will act very much like criminals. They wont care about the legal way to obtain something and, instead, will opt for whatever means of getting a gun to accomplish their goal. The only thing such a meeting will do is slow down the purchase for already law-abiding, sane citizens.
-
Re: Suggs and Guns
This is good to know, which i wasnt fully aware of, but not much unlike convicted felons, its past the fact and pretty obvious at that point that they shouldnt possess a weapon. Nothing was stopping them from buying a gun before they were diagnosed which a psychiatric screening possibly could have.
But are you suggesting potential gun owners actually sit down and speak with a mental health professional prior to buying a gun? If so, that's incredibly burdensome and wholly ineffective.
Mentally unstable folks will act very much like criminals. They wont care about the legal way to obtain something and, instead, will opt for whatever means of getting a gun to accomplish their goal. The only thing such a meeting will do is slow down the purchase for already law-abiding, sane citizens.-JAB
-
12-11-2012, 02:09 PM #51Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
Re: Suggs and Guns
When you give up liberty for security you soon have neither.
You can claim that a psychiatric evaluation *may* have saved lives in Aurora, but it's a 100% guess on your part.
Nut jobs have been killing folks far longer than the gun has been around. This focus on the tool and not the person doing the deed is what gives folks like myself more aggravation -- constantly jumping through hoops when I am not the problem.
-
Re: Suggs and Guns
wouldnt a psychiatric evaluation be doing just the opposite and focusing on the person and not the tool?
I dont think what youre saying is too far off from what im proposing, but it is hoops to jump through, which the gun owning community doesnt want to be inconvenienced by.-JAB
-
12-11-2012, 02:36 PM #53Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
Re: Suggs and Guns
Yes, it would. But I did a poor job of delineating the two points.
My issue is with liberty and my rights as a responsible gun owner. Lemme answer a question with a question ....
Why not install breathalyzers in every car? Sure, it's an increased cost, something else that can break in the car, but it "may" save lives in a "few" instances. Right?
If you're ok with that, then we have a philosophical difference we're not going to solve here. I shouldn't have to prove to the government I am sane. The government should prove that I am not. The government answers to me (us), not the other way around.Last edited by HoustonRaven; 12-11-2012 at 03:27 PM.
-
-
-
Re: Suggs and Guns
a car is not designed to be a weapon though. a gun is designed to kill. its your right to have that gun, but to have that right you should have to prove youre capable of such a choice, imo. two parts of government, as defined by the constitution, are at play here.
1. promote the general welfare: constantly open to adaptation and growth, is the role of the government to provide the American people with services and regulations that are for the public good.
2. Insure domestic tranquility: The government must provide order in society and allow for domestic peace.
Its well within its constitutional rights to ask people if theyre sane enough to have their constitutional right to own a gun. at the end of the day, I dont see how giving guns to those not sane or responsible enough to own one can be considered a good thing in any way. youll have your liberty but youll also have less security than we already do.-JAB
-
Re: Suggs and Guns
Nobody is stopping your Right to own a gun, unless youre unfit, which isnt any different than taking away a convicts right or taking away a persons drivers license after too many citations or even never giving them one because they couldnt prove capable. If youre going by the Natural Right definition, were not even suppose to stop convicts from having a gun. is that what we should resort to?
-JAB
-
-
12-11-2012, 04:07 PM #59Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
Re: Suggs and Guns
The preamble is not legally binding.
And you didn't answer my question. Are you ok with breathalysers in every car? What does it matter what a gun is designed to do anyway? It's their simplest forms, both a car and gun are mere tools, both capable of good and bad in the hands of a human.
FAR more folks are killed across the country by drunk drivers than they are by a gun. So why not apply your same standard to something as every day as driving?
No it's not within the constitution to deny rights without due process. Requiring someone to see a shrink caters to the few exceptions all the while placing an undue burden on the vast majority folks who are doing the right thing (note the word "undue" and it's literal definition; something that is outside the bounds of due process is "undue").
And nobody is advocating giving guns to those who should not have them. What I am saying is there's a way to do it without infringing on my rights.
-
Re: Suggs and Guns
so youre saying you wont pass a psych eval? because than no you should lose your right just like a convict. a convict proved he was incapable of being responsible. a psych eval does the same thing as a background check but would be a preemptive measure as opposed to reactive. thats all.
as far as who pays and if you cant afford it, well thats no different than a car and car insurance, imo. you cant afford it you dont get one. can afford it but not the insurance, you still dont get one. i dont see how thats any different regardless of the law.-JAB
Bookmarks