[frank4570]

My nephew tonight said that maybe getting a gun should be like a job interview. If you can't come up with "x" number of people to say you are not dangerous, no gun for you.
If everybody who knows you thinks you are too unstable to have a gun......, maybe there is a reason for it.

[PAGunner]

Then you and your nephew like the gun laws in NY comrades!

[*ASH*]

Originally Posted by PAGunner

Then you and your nephew like the gun laws in NY comrades!

agreed!!! and just for saying that im not giving your tablet back

[frank4570]

Originally Posted by PAGunner

Then you and your nephew like the gun laws in NY comrades!

You can't come up with 2 people who think you aren't crazy, can you?

I'm just messing around, btw.

[spork]

If you mean I would have to provide references in order to practice my constitutional rights, then no thanks.

[sjfrellc]

I think we should get the Pre-Cogs from Minority Report to make the decisions. But the Beretta 9000S should be banned on account of being too bulky for an assault weapon.

[tarpleyg]

Ask your nephew if we should have X number of people also agree that we can worship whatever religion we want. Or, how about getting enough people to vouch that we're OK to vote.

Yeah, didn't think so. No, you can tell him and anyone else asking or opining that we gun owners are fed up with this bull****.

[janice6]

If this were to be the case, then the requirements should then be the same for getting a Drivers License, for the right to purchase a car and the right to vote. Get 'X' number of people to swear you are a "good voter" then see what the standards for good voter, competent car owner and "good driver" are.

[Bruce M]

Originally Posted by *ASH*

agreed!!! and just for saying that im not giving your tablet back

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by frank4570

My nephew tonight said that maybe getting a gun should be like a job interview. If you can't come up with "x" number of people to say you are not dangerous, no gun for you.
If everybody who knows you thinks you are too unstable to have a gun......, maybe there is a reason for it.

So, we take our unalienable rights, codified by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and make them susceptible and able to be summarily discharged by the mere thought of another man? No thanks OP.




































































Actually, let me rephrase and say, "**** you OP!!!"

[Saugus]

Originally Posted by frank4570

My nephew tonight said that maybe getting a gun should be like a job interview. If you can't come up with "x" number of people to say you are not dangerous, no gun for you.
If everybody who knows you thinks you are too unstable to have a gun......, maybe there is a reason for it.

I'm nuttier than a peach orchard boar. And I still got a CCW permit 18 years ago.

[frank4570]

Originally Posted by janice6

If this were to be the case, then the requirements should then be the same for getting a Drivers License, for the right to purchase a car and the right to vote. Get 'X' number of people to swear you are a "good voter" then see what the standards for good voter, competent car owner and "good driver" are.

That's true. It might not be looking so good for me making a living.

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by janice6

If this were to be the case, then the requirements should then be the same for getting a Drivers License, for the right to purchase a car and the right to vote. Get 'X' number of people to swear you are a "good voter" then see what the standards for good voter, competent car owner and "good driver" are.

Thank G-d the Constitution/Bill of Rights secures an American Citizen's right to travel free of any restrictions, which in my humble opinion, includes the Driver's License.

The modern American DL entrance program is merely a tangential form of, "let me see your papers please," held over from Germany's third reich's dictatorship.

[Bruce M]

Travel - drive. No real difference there, well except for the automobile. I am sure pretty soon some competent court will rule drivers licenses Unconsitutional. Or perhaps not.

[NorthernAlpine]

We should have an "Asylum List" if you have ever been committed, updated monthly. Period. Then you would have to have someone with an MD sign off saying such, that same MD would then be held responsible if you have a psychotic break.

[Spiffums]

How about we just have 1 person to vote NO on all your rights!

[Pierre!]

And... AND....

Then, let's take that info, put it in an Online Database so that it's easy to get to...

Yah, that makes a whole lot of sense!!!

Sure, they promise that this will run on an Apple computer which is *impervious* to attack.

Really...


Pffffftttt...

Maybe Morals, Accountability, and Responsibility should be taught instead of Empowerment for those who haven't Earned it yet...

Naaaawww ... That would never work.

Sheesh.

Patrick

[Averageman]

Is your Nephew David Gregory?

[NorthernAlpine]

Originally Posted by Pierre!

And... AND....

Then, let's take that info, put it in an Online Database so that it's easy to get to...

Yah, that makes a whole lot of sense!!!

Sure, they promise that this will run on an Apple computer which is *impervious* to attack.

Really...


Pffffftttt...

Maybe Morals, Accountability, and Responsibility should be taught instead of Empowerment for those who haven't Earned it yet...

Naaaawww ... That would never work.

Sheesh.

Patrick

So your going to teach morals, accountability, and responsibility to someone with Schizo disorders, Dissociative or Bi-Polar disorders, anti-social behaviors or any of the major 'manias'. Everyone of which have a break in basic empathy towards other people. In short you can't teach this or reach these people.

You have a background check done when you purchase your firearm, I would include an actual 'crazy' portion. You and I don't need access to it, nor does the public, but the FBI handles 99% of the information, this would simply get tacked on.

I'm talking about a realistic approach to curtailing a problem.

Prior to the shooting rampage at an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater earlier this month, the accused gunman sent a journal—replete with detailed drawings of his plans for the deadly assault—to a University of Colorado psychiatrist who he was seeing. The fact that the Aurora shooting suspect was in touch with a medical professional is an indication that he fits the profile of a spree killer. Typically mentally disturbed individuals, spree killers most often plan their attacks and, as a rule, generally tell someone about their plans—in many cases, a mental health professional. Unfortunately, federal and state budget cuts mean that individuals with mental illness will find that help is increasingly harder to come by.
Between 2009 and 2011, states cumulatively cut more than $1.8 billion from their budgets for mental health services, according to a report released in 2011 by the National Alliance on Mental Illness. At least two-thirds of states significantly slashed spending for services for children and adults living with mental illness.

@ http://www.americanprogress.org/.
or same report @http://www.nami.org/

I got it, the last two majors have been involved stolen firearms, but the number of people who have been committed be it voluntarily or involuntarily is absent from NICS background checks.

This isn't about taking your rights, or someone telling you can't have, and your foolish if you interpret this as such. The OP asks if the freaking mentally ill should be able to own a firearm. The answer is no, but we aren't checking.

[paul45]

Originally Posted by NorthernAlpine

Apparently, with his sickening grotesque gut, the vegan lifestyle is not working for him.

[Baba Louie]

Excuse me, would you please co-sign on my unalieanable right? I need to get one or two more signatures from authorized respondants and have it notarized later and then apply to the local gendarmes to see if they have time to process my background check, consult with my doctor, look into my electronic medical history report, public school reports (the permanent record!!!), income tax returns for the last 12 years and of course pay them the fee... (call it mission creep)

Sounds like a GREAT idea to me.

Will it prevent homicidal maniacs from having guns?

In a word, No.

He (homicidal maniac) will just steal one from you... or me... or his parents... who went thru hell to be allowed to buy it.

Or maybe, after passing said checks and signatories, next week or next month or year, he'll become depressed, start drinking or popping pills, get fired from his job, lose girlfriend, his dog will bite him or die, become morose, decide to go out in a blaze of dark immortal glory... in a gun free zone.

Let me repeat that last line... IN A GUN FREE ZONE

Should we try to prevent these wack jobs from having guns? It does sound good at face value.

Once we identify them, they should give up their liberty and freedom, right? But how to do that? Look at their middle school and high school records and see if they "didn't fit in" with the rest of the clicques of cool kids? Uh, oh. That "Permanent Record" we all heard about as teens. Or laughed about. (it does exist BTW) Did they sit on the bench in the Deans office daily? (all gun free zones)

Or should I be judged as a potential homicidal maniac and have to prove my sanity and maybe post a $100,000 bond and buy some more insurance coverage to help pay for those who do run amok as part of the affordable health care act? (Now there's a thought!)

There is no one Pat answer to fit all, tho' I expect Uncle Joe and Daddy Barry to come up with one. Here's hoping Uncle Harry won't let it hit the floor of the Senate and Cryin Johnny will do the same across the hallway, until the people have a chance to at least see what it is we'll probably have forced down our throats. I'm sure it will be common sensical... and not stop crime whatsoever.

Kudos to your nephew for brainstorming the issue though. Seriously. Glad someone is besides our deep thinking VP Joe Biden. Tell him to keep coming up with alternative ideas, but try to keep liberty and freedom at the forefront, or at least somewhere in the equation?

[meleors]

So your nephew wishes to treat people as guilty until proven innocent. Another shining example of modern education.
Did your nephew get "X" number of people to say he is not dangerous so he may exercise his 1st amendment right to free speech? What about voting? Or the church he wishes to attend or not any at all?

[NorthernAlpine]

Originally Posted by paul45

Apparently, with his sickening grotesque gut, the vegan lifestyle is not working for him.

[PAGunner]

Originally Posted by NorthernAlpine

So your going to teach morals, accountability, and responsibility to someone with Schizo disorders, Dissociative or Bi-Polar disorders, anti-social behaviors or any of the major 'manias'. Everyone of which have a break in basic empathy towards other people. In short you can't teach this or reach these people.

You have a background check done when you purchase your firearm, I would include an actual 'crazy' portion. You and I don't need access to it, nor does the public, but the FBI handles 99% of the information, this would simply get tacked on.

I'm talking about a realistic approach to curtailing a problem.

@ http://www.americanprogress.org/.
or same report @http://www.nami.org/

I got it, the last two majors have been involved stolen firearms, but the number of people who have been committed be it voluntarily or involuntarily is absent from NICS background checks.

This isn't about taking your rights, or someone telling you can't have, and your foolish if you interpret this as such. The OP asks if the freaking mentally ill should be able to own a firearm. The answer is no, but we aren't checking.

This I agree with wholeheartedly, and I say this as a psychiatry resident who deals with real mental illness everyday. One of the major problems we have is that people who develop schizophrenia are most dangerous during the first several months after they become symptomatic, so early detection is key.... Think James Holmes and possibly Adam Lanza.

[Mrs.Cicero]

Originally Posted by PAGunner

This I agree with wholeheartedly, and I say this as a psychiatry resident who deals with real mental illness everyday. One of the major problems we have is that people who develop schizophrenia are most dangerous during the first several months after they become symptomatic, so early detection is key.... Think James Holmes and possibly Adam Lanza.

Why is that? Is it just because that is before they are medicated, or is it something else? Don't they become problematic every time they choose to go off their meds? I'm just curious...