Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
POTUS Changes his mind on AWB
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dale00" data-source="post: 2061163" data-attributes="member: 688"><p>"Improved govt <u>regulation</u> is needed to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill." This is how it would be presented. </p><p></p><p>In the abstract this sounds good but the devil is in the details. <u>Whose definition of mental illness will be used?</u> Could this definition be abused? Certainly. This was a favorite trick in the USSR. If you opposed the government, you were mentally ill and needed to be confined. </p><p></p><p>Can psychologists accurately tell who might be violent or suicidal? Obviously not in most cases. So this mental illness judgement could easily be abused. If it saves one life then the govt is justified in denying the right to own firearms. And as others are pointing out, this would be bolstered in short order by universal registration once it became apparent that mental illness assessments were not working to prevent violence due to the abundance of unregistered firearms.</p><p></p><p>I think <u>we need to let our reps know our specific opposition to any form of background check enhancement</u>. This is a potential end run that could be pulled in one of their infamous rushed, last minute bills hidden inside another piece of legislation. </p><p></p><p>The step our reps can and should be taking to protect school kids is to <u>eliminate the federal gun-free zone laws</u>. Beyond that let the states decide how to improve safety in schools. Utah already allows teachers to carry and Texas may be moving in that direction.</p><p></p><p>Regulation equals infringement.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dale00, post: 2061163, member: 688"] "Improved govt [U]regulation[/U] is needed to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill." This is how it would be presented. In the abstract this sounds good but the devil is in the details. [U]Whose definition of mental illness will be used?[/U] Could this definition be abused? Certainly. This was a favorite trick in the USSR. If you opposed the government, you were mentally ill and needed to be confined. Can psychologists accurately tell who might be violent or suicidal? Obviously not in most cases. So this mental illness judgement could easily be abused. If it saves one life then the govt is justified in denying the right to own firearms. And as others are pointing out, this would be bolstered in short order by universal registration once it became apparent that mental illness assessments were not working to prevent violence due to the abundance of unregistered firearms. I think [U]we need to let our reps know our specific opposition to any form of background check enhancement[/U]. This is a potential end run that could be pulled in one of their infamous rushed, last minute bills hidden inside another piece of legislation. The step our reps can and should be taking to protect school kids is to [U]eliminate the federal gun-free zone laws[/U]. Beyond that let the states decide how to improve safety in schools. Utah already allows teachers to carry and Texas may be moving in that direction. Regulation equals infringement. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
POTUS Changes his mind on AWB
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom