NRA and the Like, Get Out Your Checkbooks

After the six killings by Elliot Rodger in Isla Vista last week, California legislators are busy making plans for new laws to curb gun violence committed by the mentally ill.

If such laws are passed in California there is a good chance they will spread to many other states, and could encourage passage of federal laws. This type of gun law proliferation to protect the public from the mentally unbalanced has proven popular with the vast majority of the U.S. This is especially true since the Sandy Hook killings took place.

Knowing the national support already present, the NRA, and similar groups, should get their checkbooks out and be ready to spend, spend, spend. If they fail in this, crazy people nationwide could lose their guns and their opportunities to commit mass murder. This would be a severe blow to their Second Amendment rights.


http://news.yahoo.com/santa-barbara-attacks-prompt-action-lawmakers-212400338.html

 

I have no issue with selling the mentally ill full auto machine guns. Nuclear weapons even. In that I don't have any desire to send men with guns to arrest the shopkeeper and the customer. They haven't done anything wrong. I support the government not even having knowledge that a transaction has taken place.

While I'd prefer no legislation, I have much less objection to legislation of this sort at the state level. That way they can compete to find the best policy. Government is least abhorrent when its policies are the product of competition rather than bureaucracy.

[hr][/hr]

Whatever you do, don't go down the road we have. Guns really are treated like nuclear weapons. Self defense is illegal, and the entire process is designed with the conscious intent of being so onerous as to discourage peaceful ownership.

We're all treated as mentally ill.

 

Then you must get out your checkbook and protect the rights of the wackos like Elliot Rodger, Adam Lanza, ‎Jared Loughner, etc.

 

I support them until the point when they use force or are imminently about to use force. Simply having the power to do wrong does not mean we should treat them as though they will.

In a free society of 300 million, (*)(*)(*)(*) happens. There's no way around it, there is no remedy, there are already just as many guns as they are people. Pandora's box has been opened. Even if you made selling to the mentally ill illegal (which would require extension of the current invasions into the privacy of private citizens), the idea that they wouldn't be able to get a gun if they wanted to is ridiculous.

[hr][/hr]

At the end of the day it comes down to a value call.

 

That's basically it in a nutshell. The left thinks that it's entirely possible to have all 300 million people act and behave the same from coast to coast. Then get outraged when one from those 300 million does something wrong which would force a change of law for 299,999,999 of the population based on the action of one.

As for the topic, since this happened in CA I would love to hear from Democrat Senator, Leeland Yee on the topic.

 

The first three victims were stabbed to death with a knife. This ones going no where.

 

If we think you are crazy can we remove your first amendment rights?

 

I think the fact that the tea partiers are still around (barely) answers that.

 

Shouldn't we enforce mentality checks equally on all amendments? For example if you take a prescription drug for mental disorders perhaps we shouldn't allow you to vote. Are you ok with that?

 

According to the link the fourth amendment is also a target. While I believe the OP is being rather optimistic I would not put it past Cali passing it. Most other democrats know better than to get the NRA members and allies fired up with the mid-terms coming up. With the exception of the bluest of states it is a loser and most know it.

 

Another anti-gun troll thread.

 

And here's to many more. Eventually America will grow up and say 'enough is enough'. We can but live in hope...

 

Huh? I thought this was an anti-knife troll thread?

 

Yes, maybe schools will start actually teaching history and people will start actually thinking for themselves instead of believing everything they are told by government and everything they see on TV. I won't hold my breath.

 

The problem the term mentally ill is very lightly used in America. For example, it's considered to be mentally ill to not believe in God for some Christians.

I really don't see how new legislation will help curb the mentally ill.

This is the same kind of alarmist crap that gave us the abominable TSA.

So I'm not going to support these laws. sorry.

 

Taxcutter says:
Are Democrats nationwide gonna push for more gun confiscation in 2014?

 

How about we just ban guns for young progressive beta males like these 3 guys? If they were ideologically consistent, they wouldn't want them anyway.

 

These are sick young men that often give off plenty of signs before going on their rampage. This guys parents even called the police and the police just interviewed him and said he was OK. There has to be a better system to identify this kind of sickness.

Other than that, the mantra of background checks that the anti-gunners rant about went flat since this guy passed the background check.

 

Although is a way to blow off steam, the needless placing of blame going on by the right-wingers responding to the OP has nothing to do with the topic. Responses should be ideas on the best methods of stopping California lawmakers.

The point being, that California IS going to pass laws that allow families and law enforcement to intervene before these nuts with guns can go off the deep end. After California, other states will undoubtedly pass similar laws. So, if the NRA wants to successfully continue its campaign opposing all forms of gun control, it is time for the organization(s) and members to start greasing the politicians. (we’re talking big bucks)

Even though such common sense laws would in no way affect the average gun owners, curbing gun ownership for the mentally disturbed will be vehemently opposed by the right wing. This is understandable, because there are many devoted Second Amendment advocates that realize their own mental instability is already apparent to their families, friends, and others around them. Laws like the ones proposed in California would grant the sane family members and friends the right to step in and legally remove the weapons endangering the unstable individual(s) and their potential victims.

With the California legislature beginning to act on these proposed laws, and since keeping firearms in the hands of those with questionable sanity is important to the Second Amendment fanatics, deep pockets and checkbooks must, very soon, open wide and the spending begin.

 

LOL, the NRA profits from the extra attention unlike the "control" crowd gunowners always spend money supporting firearms. The "control" crowd just talks spends very little except a few extremely rich indivduals. If California wants to pass the law that is their choice. Some of the suggestions may draw fire from the ACLU and other civil rights organizations. While I don't like a knee jerk response to tragedy to get a bill passed that will have no effect on a crazy person ability to kill IMO. Considering half of the dead were by a knife and he even ran over people that luckily did not die. I am not worried it will have a major effect. It will not negatively effect most of the US. If anything it will give the NRA more money to spend on the midterms. It is a loser for democrats not the NRA IMO. If sandy hook was not enough I can not
believe you think this will cause a major shift in public opinion.

 

What does "intervene" mean? Lock 'em up BEFORE they commit a crime?

 

Which would likely be the only way to stop them if they want to kill and want to die themselves. So a major expansion of the mental health system would be required. If you locked all males between the age of 14-25 violent crime would plummet. That is impossible in a free country or any country for that matter.

If you expand restricting rights to those that seek treatment on their own. You likely just stop people from seeking treatment.

 

Your government already reads your emails and listens to your phone calls and you think if they know about gun purchase transactions of the mentally ill is going to far?

 

And just WHO decides WHOM is mentally ill or not? What is the criteria for being judged mentally ill? How do you limit the criteria so that over time most everyone, that isn't rich, famous, or connected, is deemed to fit a mentally ill box in some trumped up form?

 

Just imagine some overprotective, smothering parent getting a judge to take away their adult son's guns for a shoddy reason. This would be what happens well over 99% of the time since mass shooters are so rare.