Anything goes thread

[Yukon4Runner]

Amending the constitution is just, like, soooo hard.

It's way easier to twist the existing one into a pretzel then whine about it when you can't twist it anymore.

 

[Thefishguy77]

Well let's just start with the opening quote in blue on the page. "....if you're too dangerous to get on a plane, you are too dangerous to buy a gun in America".

The no fly list is a list put together with no Due process of law these people are not accused and the tried and found guilty. They are just put on a list and never informed of being on said list. Getting off the list can prove very costly in attorney fees as well. The violation of due process of law is protected under the 5th amendment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Yukon4Runner]

The libs are all in favor of having bureaucrats define our rights...as long as it them doing the defining.

See how quickly they change their tune when its the evil "throw grandma off the cliff" republicans doing the defining.

 

[Hepar]

Well let's just start with the opening quote in blue on the page. "....if you're too dangerous to get on a plane, you are too dangerous to buy a gun in America".

The no fly list is a list put together with no Due process of law these people are not accused and the tried and found guilty. They are just put on a list and never informed of being on said list. Getting off the list can prove very costly in attorney fees as well. The violation of due process of law is protected under the 5th amendment.

I'm not arguing that point or saying I agree with all of the points in the link provided, but I do agree with your point above.

You spoke of slippery slope before and I agree that it applies to this subject as well. All of this is a huge slippery slope that we are dealing with. As mentioned before, none of us seem to be able to handle power. But it is also obvious that us as a whole that none of us have the common sense to be able to take care of these things without some rules.

I was just curious about the psych eval part. And I don't want something from several years ago, but something current.

 

[Thefishguy77]

_#1_ in the America this week what the hell thread he sites that Hilary just wants to pass a bill for psyc evals.

I believe he is referring to this on the same page you provided

Prohibiting people from suffering from severe mental illness for purchasing guns.

If you have been involuntarily committed for mental illness you are already prohibited from purchasing a firearm. So if she modifies this wouldn't that once again violate due process of law?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hepar]

Prohibiting people from suffering from severe mental illness for purchasing guns.

If you have been involuntarily committed for mental illness you are already prohibited from purchasing a firearm. So if she modifies this wouldn't that once again violate due process of law?

Prohibiting someone with a severe mental illness is not the same as requiring a psych evaluation to own a gun.

 

[Thefishguy77]

Explain the difference and to what she defines as a sever mental illness. But either way unless due process of law is applied then it doesn't pass the sniff test.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hepar]

Explain the difference and to what she defines as a sever mental illness. But either way unless due process of law is applied then it doesn't pass the sniff test.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The difference is one is saying that everyone who wants a gun is required to pass a psych evaluation. The other is saying that ones that have failed are prohibited. So, let's say you have a 100 people. One is saying all 100 people must be evaluated first. The other is saying if 1 fails an evaluation, they are prohibited. It doesn't meant that the other 99 were required to take that evaluation.

 

[Yukon4Runner]

Lib doctors doing the "evaluation"...no way that will be abused.

 

[Thefishguy77]

It doesn't say that. It say preventing people with severe mental illness. Nothing more. Some would say now Hillary is presenting sever physical illness and with her history of concussions and blood clots she has had mental damage. But unless she goes through an actual mental evaluation then it's just an arbitrary statement. So what defines sever mental illness. And what's to prevent "sever" from changing the definition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hepar]

It doesn't say that. It say preventing people with severe mental illness. Nothing more. Some would say now Hillary is presenting sever physical illness and with her history of concussions and blood clots she has had mental damage. But unless she goes through an actual mental evaluation then it's just an arbitrary statement. So what defines sever mental illness. And what's to prevent "sever" from changing the definition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not talking about what was said there. I was speaking about your original statement that she wants to require psych evaluations.

As far as the particulars, I don't have the answer. But there needs to be a line. Are you saying you're OK with someone with say a known strong medically evaluated diagnosis of schizophrenia with owning firearms?

 

[Thefishguy77]

I'm not talking about what was said there. I was speaking about your original statement that she wants to require psych evaluations.



As far as the particulars, I don't have the answer. But there needs to be a line. Are you saying you're OK with someone with say a known strong medically evaluated diagnosis of schizophrenia with owning firearms?

Your right requiring psyc evals was something o took from _#1_ in the America this week thread. So that's my bad. The only way I see to do this is to modify the HIPAA laws. After that you can begin to designe a law that would define what mental illnesses would count as sever and what degree it is.

As to your question on if I am ok with mentally ill people owning firearms I say yes. If they are capable of earning enough money to purchase a firearm and present themselves in a manner where there behavior doesn't throw up red flags then I am fine with it.

I am not willing to sacrifice my rights for a false sense of security. The Supreme Court has ruled several time you are responsible for your own security not law enforcement. I am ok being in charge of my security and my families. My wife is the same way and we will raise our kid(s) the same way.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Ben Franklin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hepar]

As to your question on if I am ok with mentally ill people owning firearms I say yes. If they are capable of earning enough money to purchase a firearm and present themselves in a manner where there behavior doesn't throw up red flags then I am fine with it.

That begs the question, what would you deem as being red flags?

 

[Thefishguy77]

That is up to the particular dealer.

There is no set of "red flags". There have been many many sale stopped due to red flags "gut feelings". Dealers are empowered to do so. It happens more often than one would think.

As a firearms enthusiast I have many friends that work in stores. They all have denied sales to people even before the background check was run.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hepar]

The only way I see to do this is to modify the HIPAA laws. After that you can begin to designe a law that would define what mental illnesses would count as sever and what degree it is.

But in this breath, you speak of the possibility of reform in regards to mental illness with how it is evaluated from the healthcare perspective and not the dealer side. Like I said before, you must make the line someplace.

 

[Thefishguy77]

I have said my line. I was stating that the above is how if they want to begin to reform the laws towards a mental illness ban. This would be one of the first places to start.

My place once again. I am fine with the current BGC system as it is. I do not think these current laws reduce crime in any way but I also don't think there is any problem with the current system. Does it infringe on my rights. A small bit, but it's tolerable.

Anything else including the current Washington state law 594 requiring BGC that include a SN registration is not necessary. There is no reason for a SN registration unless you want to track every single gun in the state. Firearm registration is not necessary at all. A BGC can be done with out any firearm SN needed. Why should it matter the SN of the gun I have it the paper work says precede on the BGC?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thefishguy77]

Sad night Friday night.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/2...__wounded_in_West_Philadelphia.html?mobi=true




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[-JD-]

I do not think these current laws reduce crime in any way but I also don't think there is any problem with the current system. Does it infringe on my rights. A small bit, but it's tolerable

:noidea:

 

[nevada]

I see where you are trying to go with this, but it's simply not a valid argument. My point is that you cannot use a place like Chicago (or any other place with "strict" gun laws) as an example of those laws not working when you can go in either direction (and actually three if you crossed the lake to Michigan) to places where the laws are different. If we had borders that required more strict passage between like Canada and Mexico, then I feel you could make a more valid argument.

it is valid.
if I may, you are saying the presence and access to guns is the problem. they are restricted in Chicago, so those people go to neighboring states to get them. that is your position, correct?

if that were true, and access was the issue, those neighboring states would ALSO have high gun crime. because they clearly have more and easier access to them.

If the argument is for gun ownership to avoid a militant takeover of this country, my response would be godspeed if you think that the people could mount any sort of defense against that as it stands now. Good luck to any group against our ships, tanks, jets, etc etc.

so instead you would rather just lay down and die?
there are many that feel that way, but there are MANY, including myself, and others responding in this thread, that would fight/die to preserve our freedom.
who are you(or anyone) else to even attempt to deny us that right?

No, if you were to change the conceal permit laws to match Chigaco in Missouri, anyone who decided not to follow that change in law is then being criminalized. Arguing that because something was legal at one point, but not currently criminalizes someone is a silly argument.

if they suddenly came out with a law banning listening to the radio while driving, because its too much of a distraction(not that far fetched to think they would try) then EVERYONE who currently does that would be a criminal.

As far as the particulars, I don't have the answer. But there needs to be a line. Are you saying you're OK with someone with say a known strong medically evaluated diagnosis of schizophrenia with owning firearms?

key word here is KNOWN. who gets to make that assessment?

I believe their are current laws against people with restraining orders and guns. but it doesn't take any facts to get a restraining order. you only have to say you fear being attacked by someone. as if a piece of paper will keep them from trying to hurt you.

so anyone at any time would be able to restrict your personal rights on a whim. how is that OK?

that's very much like the no fly list that was mentioned earlier. its ridiculously easy to get put on, but very difficult to be removed from.

 

[ThorInc]

it is valid.
if I may, you are saying the presence and access to guns is the problem. they are restricted in Chicago, so those people go to neighboring states to get them. that is your position, correct?

How I interpreted his comment and I am pro firearm and pro carry (if allowed in the GWN ), he is saying that Chicago is not really a valid example of firearm restriction laws not being effective as you can simply go to the next state and drive one back so using chicago as an example of firearm control laws not being effective is kinda moot to anyone that wants access to a firearm. But I am just zeroing in on his point in response to using Chicago as an example.........