Get ready for a fight

[tater74]

I'm not a conspiracy type guy, but this bugs me a lot. I can see it being used to remove guns from people that have every legal right to have them. I wonder who is the final judge of who is mentally ill and who isn't.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-1 ... cmpid=yhoo

 

[skyhightree1]

Well just having a friend killed by a mentally ill person with a history of mental illness. I can understand why they are doing that as far as who is the final judge I think if you have a mental history and have been adjucated to mental institutions you should not have a gun or have certain illnesses .

 

[Ryder]

Tater raises a good question.
Reminds me of years ago La.. had a governor whose wife disapproved of some of his antics.
She got him locked up in a mental hospital. He fired the head man over all the state hospitals and put his own man in. No more problems.
Was Uncle Earl crazy? Yes. Like a fox.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

Some common sense is needed, but when have we seen that out of our government?

I don't like the idea that if my spouse was treated, I cannot own a gun. A few protective steps such as lock boxes or trigger locks may be in order in that situation.

If someone is truly disturbed, having contact with them is okay with me. But I'm also concerned about how this may get abused.

If we really wanted to do something about gun crime, I think in addition to parole requirements, if you commit a VIOLENT crime, a search of your residence for guns should be allowed for a fairly extended time and especially if you utilized a weapon. If you utilized a gun or weapon to commit a crime, the time should not be reduced. Second offense and your done forever.

 

[pdfangus]

yall need to realize that they are talking about making things safer but they really want to relieve you of your rights....

all these do gooders want to make rules for your own good.....

I use to sort of respect the astronaut Kelly....I could understand his position as a gun control advocate....I could even understand him buying guns as a gun control advocate....but when he said he did it just to prove how simple it was....TO MAKE A LEGAL BUSINESS TRANSACTION.....called buying a gun I realized he was just another hypocrite who has gotten caught up in the liberal bias and then lied to cover his ass......

last gun I bought took me too days to make a legal transaction because the state required background check was "delayed"...."delays are becoming more common....won't matter if I can not buy ammunition.....

 

[backhoeboogie]

There are people out there belonging to coalitions whose goal is to remove guns. Period. This is a victory for them.

There are crazy drivers out there. We have all seen them. No one is taking their driver's license away. If they get caught doing something crazy their license is only suspended.

Texting and driving kills way more folks. No one is banning cell phones.

The situation is out of control.

 

[skyhightree1]

backhoe I can agree with what your saying about drivers licenses and all that and yes it is getting out of control. I think if we had a REAL justice system we wouldnt be having this convo. If they started killing and cutting off body parts like other countries I think alot of people would think twice before doing some stupid S.

 

[highgrit]

Why the heck did they take the ammo??? Just a abuse of force. You can also bet that any legal gun owner has got to be crazy to go and seek mental help. Commercialfarmer has it right for the violent felony criminal side of this fight, but I don't see why thy should get a second chance though.

 

[backhoeboogie]

There was an editorial one-liner in an Illinois news paper. (I had to modify a little).

"A pen in the hand of a politician is far more dangerous than a gun in the hands of 200 million law-abiding citizens."

 

[greybeard]

....won't matter if I can not buy ammunition.....

This morning I lucked out and was able to buy several cases of ammo. On the way home I stopped at the gas station where a drop-dead gorgeous blonde was filling up her car at the next pump.

She looked at the ammo in the back of my truck and said in a very sexy voice, "I'm a big believer in barter, big boy. Would you be interested in trading sex for ammo?"

I thought a few seconds and asked, "What kinda ammo ya got?"

8) :lol2:

 

[tater74]

Skyhightree, I certainly see your point and am truely sorry for your loss. I think there are people who shouldn't be allowed to own, possess or be around guns. My question is "who gets to be the final judge of who can and who can't have a gun". If its me, I'm ok. If it is somebody else, I don't want them restricting my rights. I have worked in the healthcare field for the last 23 years on both the med-surg side and the mental health side. The grey area between sane and insane can vary from therapist/physician to therapist/physician.
My father had a rough go of it at one point in his life. I was there to witness it. He was able to get help and get through it. We hunted together several times after that. I was there when he shot his first elk. That wouldn't have happened under the California law.
Again, I feel there are people that shouldn't be allowed to touch a gun. Who decides that is my concern

 

[skyhightree1]

Thank you tater.. I also see your point. I mean something has to be done but what exactly is it to be done ???? I think if we had more harsher punishment it wouldnt be needed.

 

[pdfangus]

we need to cahnge the entire mindset of the country....

Back in the day the citizens were free and we punished the criminals.

today we molly coddle and make excuses for the criminals and punish the citizens by restricting their rights....

not just in guns but in everything that comes up ....

It is because the politicians have found that they can just put stuff out there to restrict our rights for our own saftey and also to liberate our money from us....and most of america is so desirous of having some one thake care of them that they want this crap.

 

[Fly-guy]

Skyhightree, I certainly see your point and am truely sorry for your loss. I think there are people who shouldn't be allowed to own, possess or be around guns. My question is "who gets to be the final judge of who can and who can't have a gun". If its me, I'm ok. If it is somebody else, I don't want them restricting my rights. I have worked in the healthcare field for the last 23 years on both the med-surg side and the mental health side. The grey area between sane and insane can vary from therapist/physician to therapist/physician.
My father had a rough go of it at one point in his life. I was there to witness it. He was able to get help and get through it. We hunted together several times after that. I was there when he shot his first elk. That wouldn't have happened under the California law.
Again, I feel there are people that shouldn't be allowed to touch a gun. Who decides that is my concern

I can think of more people that I would like to ban the pen from than I can think of banning guns from. :tiphat:

 

[cow pollinater]

The only bad part about this law is the timing. It's the only gun related law that I've heard of that actually makes sense. They are trying to go back and correct a loophole that allows violent criminals to own guns. The timing just sucks, though. Right now is not the time to talk about guns at all unless they're going to pass them out for free.
I see the slippery slope arguement and part of me agrees with it, especially in the times we're in, but if we can agree that law abiding citizens should have guns and that criminals should not, then this law is a big step in the right direction.
By contrast, I just recieved an answer to an email that I sent to senator feinstien and her stance is pretty much that we'll always be allowed to keep and bare arms but the government gets to tell us which ones we can keep and bare.
I think it makes more sense to enforce the laws that are ALREADY IN PLACE even if it takes another law to get that done than it does to just take everyones' guns away.

 

[tater74]

I agree that we need to enforce the laws we have, we don't need more of them.

 

[cow pollinater]

I agree that we need to enforce the laws we have, we don't need more of them.

But that's the rub... We have laws here in CA that say that anyone convicted of certain felonies cannot have access to firearms after their conviction and yet the firearms that they legally purchased before their conviction are still in their possession and everyone knows they're there but nobody can do anything about it and the only crime committed is another BS court case of "felon in possession" that legally cannot end in him losing possession of his gun even though he's not suposed to have it and won't wind up with him in jail because of crowding.
The only ways to enforce the laws on the books are to A. take them at the time of conviction, or B. go get them after the fact... A. didn't happen so they're trying to make B. legal. It's an attempt to enforce the INTENT of laws already on the books so that criminals get punished instead of blaming gun violence on law abiding citizens and taking OUR guns.
And, yes, I understand that most felons don't take laws into consideration and will still have access but I think we can at least deny them access to guns that are registered in their name.
I also believe that If this law were a legitimate gun grab it would have been alot broader in focus. I read up on it but that was a month or so ago so I'm not up on specifics but it was pretty narrow in it's list of offenders. We're talking rapists and armed robbers.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

Why the heck did they take the ammo??? Just a abuse of force. You can also bet that any legal gun owner has got to be crazy to go and seek mental help. Commercialfarmer has it right for the violent felony criminal side of this fight, but I don't see why thy should get a second chance though.

Several violent crimes should not. And many lesser ones that loss of life is not warranted, a second bad decision should not lead to the options of a making a third and fourth. We shouldn't waste tax money running them through the court system like a chronic calf. By the time they fulfill the first sentence to the fullest, they shouldn't need extra time to think about what they've done.

Of course, I think to assist in rehabilitation, most should be shipped to Arizona for the summer and Montana for the winter. They can make their own tents, produce their own food, sew their own clothes, so their won't be a need for TV, internet and such or a need for much tax dollars. Just use of a little Federal land.

Those on the express lane (murderers, non-statutory rapists and child predators) will be housed in luxury in the deep swamps of the south with open windows and no air conditioners. The entertainment of making paper fans and swatting mosquitos will just be an added bonus.

A few years after implementation, I think we would need fewer jails, the court would be less backed up, and we would need fewer gun laws.

I'm still working on the mental illness aspect. But starters would include creating a better economy. It has been proven that a bad economy will see an increase violence from mental illness. I assume it is just an added stressor to their life lowering the threshold for inappropriate actions.