I could go for that, check for Felony criminal convictions or those deemed a danger to themselves and others by a doctor (why the doctor cannot institutionalize them is beyond me) and yes, no registration since it serves no purpose other than to let the government know who every legal gun owner is and what guns they own, that is the ones you bought at a store, buy one from a private person and there is no check or record of it, just so you know. That is about as far as I am willing to go and no further, no registration and no National or State database storing the information. Since you are in Texas and if you had bought a gun here in the last 10 years you would have filled out a form that asks many of those questions for them to run their check on you. The entire process takes anywhere from 5 minutes (after you get the form filled out, and jeeez don't make any mistakes they are nazis about "no changes") up to a couple of days at most, usually by the time I get though picking out some nice accessories, cleaning supplies and ammo the check is done and I am free to walk out the store with my new purchase.
Arming the teachers is not the solution IMO, far to much of a chace of kids being able to get ahold of them, many do not want to carry and many are not well enough trained to be reliable in a crisis. A better idea is trained Armed Guards in all the schools and we already have pool of trained operators in the many military personnel getting out of the service and looking for jobs, give them the training to work as a school guard and put them to work. Another reason teachers are not the answer, even though I am not against those that want to carry doing so, is the teachers are busy teaching the children while armed guards have only One Job, and that is being aware of security issues and dealing with them.
There are those who have fomented this civil conflict, and those who would prefer to just run with what WAS working. When I left the California public school system in 1976, CA. had the finest schools on earth. We had the Vocational and Industrial Clubs of America. I was Pres. at my HS. We had Corporal punishment. We produced informed, intelligent, competent Citizens. That's NOT happening now, because a very different agenda has come to rule. Now, we need armed "someones" to control the heathen hoard that "progressives" prefer to call "the future of America". Indeed we certainly need a process to determine who is a danger to society, and the means to deal with those who escape that process. Consider- Not ONE SINGLE home schooled person has EVER committed a mass shooting. Hmmm...
Why can't they institutionalise them? Well for a start "mental health problem" is a VERY broad brush and can cover every one from the bloke who says he is a little 'blue" to the Dr No act alike building a nuclear bomb in his basement Hind sight is 100% and what is clear after the event is not always that easy to detect before hand
And only ONE woman has committed a mass murder hmmmmmmm Now can you prove your assertion because I can prove mine
A court might order a mentally ill person to not buy or use firearms, but that should have no effect on gun sellers. If the person breaks the court's order he should be arrested like anyone else. You should be able to buy full auto machine pistols, full auto rifles, semi-auto shotguns, grenade launchers, RPGs, tactical nukes, whatever you can afford. You should be able to do so in a back alley from some guy in a hoody. The government shouldn't even have knowledge that a transaction has taken place.
I understand that, but one has to do something and if a doctor determines that a person can be a risk to themselves and others they should not simply walk out the door to find a place to act out and they sure has heck should not be allowed to drive down to the local gun store and buy as many guns as they can carry. - - - Updated - - - Simple the doctor puts them on a list, and just as with convicted cons they will not be able to buy the guns in the first place until removed. STUPID IDEA.
IMHO, if they are so much of a risk to themselves or others that they can't own guns, they are so much of a risk that they need to be committed to a mental hospital until they are no longer a risk. - - - Updated - - - My problem is that I don't think doctors should have that authority on their own. A rogue psychiatrist could classify all of his/her patients as unable to buy firearms just based on his/her whim. I would be ok with this if there were some kind of judicial process to take away gun rights from the mentally ill, but not just with the whim of a single person, with no legal recourse. We have to remember that in the past, dictators have used mental illness as an excuse to get rid of dissidents.
Actually I agree with both statements/ideas 100%, I did not mention the courts, and should have, my bad.
Unfortunately this would give anyone in the medical profession a VERY broad brush and you have no idea how many would be tarred with that same brush
As I agreed with another poster that did add what I should have but it should still go through the court system, that also applies to them getting those rights back if and when they get their issues resolved.
Just out of interest - which mental illness should be treated this way - Depression? Insomnia? Schizophrenia? OCD?
Here is what I would do monitor social media and the internet for anti-government speech and the like where there are other key markers, use that to bring them in for a mental evaluation and if they may pose a threat ban them from owning guns and take the ones they have away until they prove they no longer pose a threat. Just modify the Patriot Act to include broader range of domestic terrorism to include survivalists, preppers and members of key groups like racial pride organizations and broader powers for the NSA.
You mean like they do in China? I can guarantee that on this very forum there are people who would happily post that they would like to blow the government up - going to track and arrest them? How about the person who simply states they are sick of everyone? Where would you draw the line?
I think then, that it's a very good thing that you aren't making the rules. I've read quite a bit in the prepper circles, and these guys are concerned with how to get by AFTER TSHTF. No threat to others there, unless it's already gone bad, and those "others" are breaking the Golden Rule. Survivalists? Still not a threat, because they're basically still just preppers. They prepare to respond AFTER society has gone to chaos. There are already very strong provisions in place to deal with paramilitary groups who get out of hand, to include the racial pride types you mention, and others. The NSA and DHS have way too much power already.
Full on nuclear weapons for all I care. This idea that it's alright for the US, UK, China, France, India, Pakistan, Israel, etc to have nuclear weapons - but not anyone else, is bloody ridiculous. Until the point where you signal malicious intent I have no problem with you owning a nuclear weapon. Or any other weapon.
I care but then I tend to agree with Terry Pritchett that if you made a huge switch that would end the world and hung a big sign on it saying "Do not touch this ever" it would be about 10 seconds before some idiot would be swinging on it
This is easy. The NRA supported gun control in the past until the blacks started killing blacks. Now it is the right's eugenics program the same way Planned Parenthood if for the left. Makes you wonder who the puppet-masters are--they have gotten pretty good at this. I mean I live in an open carry state in which people are not allowed to wear body armor. It is almost as if they want us to kill each other off or something.
Undoubtedly true. Technology will one day get to the point where anyone can destroy the planet and there's not a thing any state can do about it. When that day comes we'll probably last half a second This is another problem created by centralization - we need to populate space.
Alright, so the NRA is hypocritical, but I'm not the NRA. Even when I was a progressive I was pro-firearm freedom. Even when I was a syndicalist I was pro-firearm freedom. The NRA =/= gun freedom advocates in the same way that NORML =/= cannabis freedom advocates. The fact that NORML supports taxation and regulation of cannabis has no effect whatsoever on my poaition. Same is true with the NRA.
I wasn't even responding to you, let alone calling you a member of the NRA. I have smoked the Mary Chronic somewhere between 1 and 2,500 times and I own somewhere between 1 and 2,500 guns, but that does not mean that I have to be "If you are not with us, you are against us" on either issue. I am willing to compromise some from where we are now. Magazine limits, transfer registration on all guns manufactured after a certain date (a lot of mine have no serial numbers because they are old), time/place/manner restrictions on firearms, even limiting people to having them outside the home unless they have a valid hunter's license would all be okay with me.
A fair response, I was at work and responded quickly must have missed something. I'm not a fan of any of the regulations you listed, but heck, anything is better than what we have now. You would most definitely be in prison for several decades if you lived here.
Safety locks?? It is one of the things that the AAP has indicated is the best for reducing the incidental gun toll
