Do you support the Brady Bill?

[BernardKingGOAT]

I don't think he stuttered.

All people would include felons and the mentally disabled, right?

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

Sure. All people have the right to defend themselves.

Convicted felons?

 

[LouderVol]

All people would include felons and the mentally disabled, right?

for felons, after they have done their time, why shouldn't they have guns?

and who gets to decide on what counts as mentally disabled? I am fully willing for gun stores to make the decision of who they sell to individually, but the government should stay the eff out of it.

 

[hog88]

All people would include felons and the mentally disabled, right?

I've made myself clear on both.

Once a convicted person completes their sentence all rights should be restored.

If a mentally disabled person is a danger to others they should be institutionalized until they are no longer a danger.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Convicted felons?

All people.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

I've made myself clear on both.

Once a convicted person completes their sentence all rights should be restored.

If a mentally disabled person is a danger to others they should be institutionalized until they are no longer a danger.

Agree.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

We should’ve learned this back in 1953 when the movie Shane came out. It remains one of the best quotes of all time.

“A gun is a tool, Marion, no better or no worse than any other tool, an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.”

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

for felons, after they have done their time, why shouldn't they have guns?

and who gets to decide on what counts as mentally disabled? I am fully willing for gun stores to make the decision of who they sell to individually, but the government should stay the eff out of it.

I witnessed an 18 year old with a history of bi-polar disorder go off his meds because he was attempting to enlist in the Navy. His behavior changed to the point that he was boasting about bringing his AR-15 to work with him because at first, to show off to the golfers and employees at the golf course he worked at, and then when asked why he was carrying in a federally protected area, he said, "for the road ragers and anyone who ****s with me".

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

All people.

Appreciate and respect your honesty

 

[Vol8188]

I’d be open for compromise here with the left. Restore all voting rights to felons upon the end of their sentence in exchange for an end to the Brady Bill.

 

[Vol8188]

I witnessed an 18 year old with a history of bi-polar disorder go off his meds because he was attempting to enlist in the Navy. His behavior changed to the point that he was boasting about bringing his AR-15 to work with him because at first, to show off to the golfers and employees at the golf course he worked at, and then when asked why he was carrying in a federally protected area, he said, "for the road ragers and anyone who ****s with me".

Seems carrying in a federally protected area is already a crime. Not sure what that has to do with this topic

 

[LouderVol]

I witnessed an 18 year old with a history of bi-polar disorder go off his meds because he was attempting to enlist in the Navy. His behavior changed to the point that he was boasting about bringing his AR-15 to work with him because at first, to show off to the golfers and employees at the golf course he worked at, and then when asked why he was carrying in a federally protected area, he said, "for the road ragers and anyone who ****s with me".

sounds like he needs help.

doesn't seem like something that needs to take away rights from anyone else. you know, that whole innocent until proven guilty thing.

Three guys tried to rob me, and were threatening violence for compliance. The only reason it was a "tried" was because of a good Samaritan brandishing a gun. for every anecdote there is another.

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

Seems carrying in a federally protected area is already a crime. Not sure what that has to do with this topic

Yep. My point was why an 18 year old with a history of bi-polar disorder, can walk into a gun shop and purchase a firearm with such ease!!!??!! Let me add, in Tennessee. I own 3 guns and can use each of them with some efficiency. I was checked out for every purchase. All of 2 minutes

 

[Vol8188]

Yep. My point was why an 18 year old with a history of bi-polar disorder, can walk into a gun shop and purchase a firearm with such ease!!!??!! Let me add, in Tennessee. I own 3 guns and can use each of them with some efficiency. I was checked out for every purchase. All of 2 minutes

So you believe people with BPD should be second class citizens with limited rights? What about anxiety, depression, etc?

 

[hog88]

Yep. My point was why an 18 year old with a history of bi-polar disorder, can walk into a gun shop and purchase a firearm with such ease!!!??!! Let me add, in Tennessee. I own 3 guns and can use each of them with some efficiency. I was checked out for every purchase. All of 2 minutes

That is a failure of the system.

Him being bipolar is probably a failure of his parents.

 

[hog88]

So you believe people with BPD should be second class citizens with limited rights? What about anxiety, depression, etc?

We've had this discussion between us before and you know it's my firm belief that most people "diagnosed" with those conditions just need a swift kick in the ass instead of medication.

 

[InVOLuntary]

That is a failure of the system.

Him being bipolar is probably a failure of his parents.

Or his docs.

 

[lawgator1]

thought there might have been something that came up about it. either expanding or repealing it.

if just general thoughts I think its like most of the government, but even more so with any gun control measure.

A supposedly good intentioned measure that ends up being ineffective and often harmful. used by various agencies to expand their powers in unlawful and Unconstitutional ways. Further, I believe the ineffectiveness is driven by two things, just overall government bureaucracy incompetence, and also harmful intent by those who wrote who either intended it to fail to allow for greater measures later, or designed it to be used for their own political uses.

The Brady Bill was just the previous attempt at the red flag laws. it's a system intended to deny the legal purchase of firearms to anyone with various red flags with no due process or transparency. its supposed to be a system with no record keeping of purchases, but it has been admitted multiple times by the FBI that they do keep records.

It doesn't work, because many criminals don't buy their guns legally. or the new criminal got their gun before they did anything worth being flagged over. and various adjustments have been fought by both sides. The Dems have wanted to increase the time delay for the review, but have also blocked various measures to include mental illnesses or residency status "upgrades". Several people, Hunter Biden, have been able to "slip through the cracks" and make "legal" purchases getting past the back ground checks when they shouldn't, fun fact when this happens to most people aka NOT Hunter Biden, the FBI can turn around and slap you with an additional crime for their failures, doesn't always happen but it has. The cracks are due to demand, and lack of reporting of various red flags. The FBI hosts the database, but it takes data from multiple local and state sources, so if various entities don't report information to the FBI their database is incomplete. again some of this is plane over worked government employees, some of its incompetence and some of it is purposefully done, the various DAs who have been releasing criminals are liable to not report those red flags along. this is part of why you see so many cases of someone getting released early or light, and then turn around and do something illegal with a new gun.

The Dems have also pushed back on expanding funding for the background checks. Typically its argued against because its not enough, and they want to do more. and instead of taking the compromise, they go absolutist and want to focus efforts on bans instead of enforcing the laws already in place. The R's tend to fight any expansion because of the Unconstitutional nature of the measures sought by Democrats, and the sheer ineffectiveness of the system.

The inherent problem is that, on the one hand we keep finding out after the fact of a mass shooting that the shooter obviously should not have been allowed to purchase firearms, while on the other hand no one can agree on how we figure that out and under what conditions before the shooting.

The political debate is that folks like myself believe that, given current circumstances we ought to err on the side of caution and if anything be slow to allow people to obtain and possess firearms, whereas others fear that such restrictions will go too far.

 

[Vol8188]

The inherent problem is that, on the one hand we keep finding out after the fact of a mass shooting that the shooter obviously should not have been allowed to purchase firearms, while on the other hand no one can agree on how we figure that out and under what conditions before the shooting.

The political debate is that folks like myself believe that, given current circumstances we ought to err on the side of caution and if anything be slow to allow people to obtain and possess firearms, whereas others fear that such restrictions will go too far.

Don’t firearm laws disproportionately affect African Americans? And yet you still support them?

 

[Pennheel]

On a side note about bi-polar disorder,it's one of those things that a person with it cannot control. I've seen it first hand. At the same time, I've experienced the same opinions first hand that are mentioned on here. It is what it is,and more power to you. I'm not here to change your mind.

As far as the topic at hand, if we lived in an ideal world, these laws would be great,but we don't. It would sure be nice though to prevent the worst of society from commiting gun crimes as much.... There's just a lot out there that slip through the cracks in regards to mass shootings. Finding the warning signs is the best way of finding those types,and that's still easier said than done. Once they have the means to do whatever they're going to do, it's too late.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

I witnessed an 18 year old with a history of bi-polar disorder go off his meds because he was attempting to enlist in the Navy. His behavior changed to the point that he was boasting about bringing his AR-15 to work with him because at first, to show off to the golfers and employees at the golf course he worked at, and then when asked why he was carrying in a federally protected area, he said, "for the road ragers and anyone who ****s with me".

A woman on her period can be just as dangerous.

 

[lawgator1]

Don’t firearm laws disproportionately affect African Americans? And yet you still support them?

The rationale varies depending on the circumstances and type of firearm.

Let's take mass shootings by disturbed persons. Seems fairly common that when these occur we find out after the fact that the shooter slipped through the cracks in some form or fashion. After the fact, almost everyone agrees that the person should not have been allowed to have firearms, of any kind, much less that increase rounds in a decreased timeframe.

Then you have the crimes of passion. A person might well have appeared perfectly fine, or at least not so troubled that their access to guns had to be cut off. But then they lose it in a domestic incident or what have you, and in retrospect suggestion is made that the person maybe should have been restricted.

Then you have routine criminals. People otherwise engaged in a life of crime. We all agree before and after the fact that such person should not have been allowed to have a firearm.

The solution you are debating has to be debated in the context of which problem you are trying to address.

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

That is a failure of the system.

Him being bipolar is probably a failure of his parents.

His parents were responsible for a possible chemical imbalance within his body? Knowing the people who raised him makes me less likely to believe they are at fault. I'm absolutely certain he didn't grow up eating fast food

 

[Vol8188]

The rationale varies depending on the circumstances and type of firearm.

Let's take mass shootings by disturbed persons. Seems fairly common that when these occur we find out after the fact that the shooter slipped through the cracks in some form or fashion. After the fact, almost everyone agrees that the person should not have been allowed to have firearms, of any kind, much less that increase rounds in a decreased timeframe.

Then you have the crimes of passion. A person might well have appeared perfectly fine, or at least not so troubled that their access to guns had to be cut off. But then they lose it in a domestic incident or what have you, and in retrospect suggestion is made that the person maybe should have been restricted.

Then you have routine criminals. People otherwise engaged in a life of crime. We all agree before and after the fact that such person should not have been allowed to have a firearm.

The solution you are debating has to be debated in the context of which problem you are trying to address.

They’re disproportionately represented in all of those.

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

A woman on her period can be just as dangerous.

I "liked" your post because it's funny. If the firearms are locked up and she's out of control without a key, you're cool. 5-6 days. In your fear mongering generalization, it's actually statistically insignificant.