02-07-2017, 06:12 PM
(02-04-2017, 03:21 PM)Benton Wrote: And there's this part of the issue.
http://thehill.com/regulation/317634-house-republicans-block-obama-era-gun-rule
Then: Mentally ill, and the government knows? You get a background check. If you're a risk to others, no gun. Not? Here's your firearm, take your meds!
Now: Mentally ill, and the government knows? Here's your firearm. Enjoy!
Every gun store owner and law enforcement official I've talked to about gun violence has the same answer: more background checks. If we as a society aren't going to address treating the mentally ill, we need to at least deal with the fallout from that.
The opposition to background checks from gun owners/advocates is the concern that the checks will be used to establish a database of who owns what. They don't trust the governments intent in creating such a database, with some justification. More below.
(02-04-2017, 03:37 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: How do we get out of the loop that says "they're coming to take our guns" ?? Hasn't enough time gone by to prove that isn't the case?
My favorite proposal was/is to treat guns as we treat regulating car ownership. Both provide enjoyment and both can cause harm if misused. Registration and insurance speaks to responsible ownership. What's not to like? Keeping the background check in place only enhances intended safety for others.
First, as to your second point, owning a car is not a constitutional right. What you're advocating is, in essence, no different than a poll tax, that is making someone pay a fee to exercise their constitutional rights. I understand that firearms are potentially lethal objects but the fact remains that owning them is a constitutional right.
As to your first point, "They're coming to take our guns" will go away when governments stop trying to take our guns. Xxlt had a good time mocking me in another thread regarding the current gun laws in CA. They have created an entire category of firearms, centerfire magazine loaded long guns, that are henceforth illegal to own, unless they are registered, or transferred, under any reason. This prohibition exists after you die as well, ownership is non-transferable, meaning I own the gun and once I die it has to be either rendered inoperable, taken out of state or surrendered to the state. This is precisely "taking away our guns", it's just a back door way of doing so. It's no different than anti-abortion lawmakers forcing clinics to have admitting privileges as a local hospital. They can say they aren't banning abortions, but in essence they are by making the conditions necessary to perform them untenable.
Still not convinced? CA banned standard capacity magazines long ago, but stated in doing so that magazines already in the state were grandfathered in and that this would not change. They have no banned all magazines over ten round capacity and any already possessed must be surrendered or transferred out of state or the owner is committing a crime. This isn't even backdoor confiscation, this is right in your face confiscation. I won't even get into the absurd ammunition purchase law that will hopefully be struck down by the courts.
If lawmakers wanted gun owners, and the NRA's, assistance on this issue then they need to stop being so disingenuous about their ultimate intentions. Gun owners don't believe a single thing about gun ownership that comes out of many politicians mouths and thus far events have shown they shouldn't.
Lastly, I completely agree that mental health issues receive a fraction of their needed support. Most mass shootings have been carried out by a mentally ill person.
