Dems push psychological evaluations for gun owners and 'family members'

[Burgermeister]

Liberals never address the issue - the people committing the crimes, in this case. Issues are only vehicles to increase government power, so they really don't worry about the effectiveness against the purported issue. Some are just stupid and might think they are trying to help, and others are following the communist morality that whatever advances the cause is justified. The vast majority of the time the legislation is completely ineffective or more typically makes the problem worse, and then they argue that they obviously need more of whatever it is they falsely argued they needed in the first place. And people let them do it over and over again.

 

[pknopp]

Liberals never address the issue - the people committing the crimes, in this case. Issues are only vehicles to increase government power, so they really don't worry about the effectiveness against the purported issue. Some are just stupid and might think they are trying to help, and others are following the communist morality that whatever advances the cause is justified. The vast majority of the time the legislation is completely ineffective or more typically makes the problem worse, and then they argue that they obviously need more of whatever it is they falsely argued they needed in the first place. And people let them do it over and over again.

I've addressed that many times. A lack of accessible and affordable mental health care and what to do with people deemed unable to integrate into society is a discussion we should have had long ago.

 

[Claudette]

A massive Democratic gun-control plan that could be called the "head shrink job protection bill" would require weapon owners and their family members to undergo "psychological evaluations."
Gun owners also would have to pay the government $800 in "insurance" fees, and a long list of weapons simply would be banned.

Unconstitutional. Perhaps one day the Democrats will forward legislation that is, but it is not today.

It's amazing just how many people the Democrats have pissed off in just two weeks.

Dems push psychological evaluations for gun owners and 'family members'

Since there are millions of gun owners out there I agree. He's pissed off loads of voters. New Mexico regrets voting for him and they aren't the only ones.

 

[LeftofLeft]

The top priority is to get the illegal guns out of the hands of the bad guys. Democrats keep focusing or leaning on the good guys with guns. Maybe we should start these psychological tests of illegal gun owners and their family members in South Chicago or West Baltimore.

Or maybe we can get the gun industry to stop dumping guns into these neighborhoods.

Case in point. Until 2010, Chicago had a pretty strict gun law. Then the National Rampage Association got rid of Chicago's gun law and forced Illinois to allow conceal carry. Well, lo and behold gun shops popped up on every corner in Chicago.

As a result, homicides in Chicago went from 460 in 2010 to 784 in 2016.

How many of those 2016 homicides were committed by legal gun owners? How many of these weapons used in the crimes were purchased in the gun shops?

You can take out the gun shops and concealed carry laws and you still are going to have illegal guns killing people by bad guys.

 

[Burgermeister]

Liberals never address the issue - the people committing the crimes, in this case. Issues are only vehicles to increase government power, so they really don't worry about the effectiveness against the purported issue. Some are just stupid and might think they are trying to help, and others are following the communist morality that whatever advances the cause is justified. The vast majority of the time the legislation is completely ineffective or more typically makes the problem worse, and then they argue that they obviously need more of whatever it is they falsely argued they needed in the first place. And people let them do it over and over again.

I've addressed that many times. A lack of accessible and affordable mental health care and what to do with people deemed unable to integrate into society is a discussion we should have had long ago.

Lack of affordable healthcare/mental healthcare is why there are so many criminal assholes shooting people? Yeah, gonna have to classify that into the bucket of fake remedies I described in my post.

 

[pknopp]

Liberals never address the issue - the people committing the crimes, in this case. Issues are only vehicles to increase government power, so they really don't worry about the effectiveness against the purported issue. Some are just stupid and might think they are trying to help, and others are following the communist morality that whatever advances the cause is justified. The vast majority of the time the legislation is completely ineffective or more typically makes the problem worse, and then they argue that they obviously need more of whatever it is they falsely argued they needed in the first place. And people let them do it over and over again.

I've addressed that many times. A lack of accessible and affordable mental health care and what to do with people deemed unable to integrate into society is a discussion we should have had long ago.

Lack of affordable healthcare/mental healthcare is why there are so many criminal assholes shooting people? Yeah, gonna have to classify that into the bucket of fake remedies I described in my post.

As it applies to the list of people listed here, yes it is. But you are dismissed as just another mindless ranter that doesn't even believe what you say.

 

[Aletheia4u]

 

[Disir]

Text - H.R.127 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

What a bunch of nitwits.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

This has nothing to do with psychology and everything to do with making gun ownership so expensive and time consuming that common citizens can't afford it.

Why would that be a bad thing?

You see, funny thing, when the Second Amendment was passed, guns were so expensive most people couldn't afford them. Gun ownership was a privilege of the rich.

Then Colt started mass producing them, and we've had criminals with guns ever since.

Funny thing, what they are kind of proposing here is what Germany already has. Germany has gun ownership, about 20 million guns for 80 million people. But it isn't considered a "Right", it's a privilege that has to be earned.

Germany has very little gun crime and few gun murders.

Funny the 1st amendment was passed when the best means of communication was letters and horse. Using your example the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to any form of mass communication, radio, tv, the internet and so on. Your argument is dumb as shit.
As far as the old world empires they never had the right to own firearms however the US has always had the right. Your argument is dumb as shit.

 

[pknopp]

This has nothing to do with psychology and everything to do with making gun ownership so expensive and time consuming that common citizens can't afford it.

Why would that be a bad thing?

You see, funny thing, when the Second Amendment was passed, guns were so expensive most people couldn't afford them. Gun ownership was a privilege of the rich.

Then Colt started mass producing them, and we've had criminals with guns ever since.

Funny thing, what they are kind of proposing here is what Germany already has. Germany has gun ownership, about 20 million guns for 80 million people. But it isn't considered a "Right", it's a privilege that has to be earned.

Germany has very little gun crime and few gun murders.

Funny the 1st amendment was passed when the best means of communication was letters and horse. Using your example the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to any form of mass communication, radio, tv, the internet and so on. Your argument is dumb as shit.
As far as the old world empires they never had the right to own firearms however the US has always had the right. Your argument is dumb as shit.

As it applies to non government entities it doesn't apply to anything.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Shall not be infringed


Fck off demoquacks

 

[AZrailwhale]

A massive Democratic gun-control plan that could be called the "head shrink job protection bill" would require weapon owners and their family members to undergo "psychological evaluations."
Gun owners also would have to pay the government $800 in "insurance" fees, and a long list of weapons simply would be banned.

Unconstitutional. Perhaps one day the Democrats will forward legislation that is, but it is not today.

It's amazing just how many people the Democrats have pissed off in just two weeks.

Yes, the last thing we'd want is for crazy people to be denied access to guns.

Instead, we need to keep teaching our kids to do Active Shooter Drills and cower behind their desks.

It's already illegal for the mentally ill to posses firearms. Try enforcing existing laws before enacting new ones.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

This has nothing to do with psychology and everything to do with making gun ownership so expensive and time consuming that common citizens can't afford it.

Why would that be a bad thing?

You see, funny thing, when the Second Amendment was passed, guns were so expensive most people couldn't afford them. Gun ownership was a privilege of the rich.

Then Colt started mass producing them, and we've had criminals with guns ever since.

Funny thing, what they are kind of proposing here is what Germany already has. Germany has gun ownership, about 20 million guns for 80 million people. But it isn't considered a "Right", it's a privilege that has to be earned.

Germany has very little gun crime and few gun murders.

Michael Bellesiles was defrocked long ago. The cloak does suit you well, though.

 

[JoeB131]

How many of those 2016 homicides were committed by legal gun owners? How many of these weapons used in the crimes were purchased in the gun shops?

Most of them, and in the latter case, almost all of them.

nearly every gun was sold by a legal gun dealer. Of course, you can run a gun business out of your spare bedroom, and that's part of the problem.

 

[Turtlesoup]

A massive Democratic gun-control plan that could be called the "head shrink job protection bill" would require weapon owners and their family members to undergo "psychological evaluations."
Gun owners also would have to pay the government $800 in "insurance" fees, and a long list of weapons simply would be banned.

Unconstitutional. Perhaps one day the Democrats will forward legislation that is, but it is not today.

It's amazing just how many people the Democrats have pissed off in just two weeks.

Dems push psychological evaluations for gun owners and 'family members'

Laws don't matter--------

Not anymore anyways.

Registering guns is the first step in the dems plans to force you to give up your guns.

 

[JoeB131]

Funny the 1st amendment was passed when the best means of communication was letters and horse. Using your example the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to any form of mass communication, radio, tv, the internet and so on. Your argument is dumb as shit.
As far as the old world empires they never had the right to own firearms however the US has always had the right. Your argument is dumb as shit.

Actually, all of those industries are either regulated or self-regulate. TV and Radio are controlled by the FCC. Movies are governed by the MPAA (and before that the Hayes Code). The internet is still the wild west, but it won't be for much longer.

The problem with the argument of Second Amendment Advocates is that we need a gun for one of two reasons.

To kill people who want to hurt us.

To overthrow the government when we don't like it anymore.

Okay, the problem with the first one is that it almost never happens. DGU's are rare, and a gun in the home if 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

The other one is even sillier, because the government has tanks and bombers and artillery and warships, and clearly, the Second Amendment didn't give the people to keep and bear those. (In colonial times, there were privately owned warships and cannons, but the government put a stop to that nonsense.)

But even if you could, what would that look like? It would be Jan. 6 every day... Hard pass for most sane people.

 

[JoeB131]

Shall not be infringed


Fck off demoquacks

Well Regulated Militia...

Fuck off, Fat Irish Sow.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

A massive Democratic gun-control plan that could be called the "head shrink job protection bill" would require weapon owners and their family members to undergo "psychological evaluations."
Gun owners also would have to pay the government $800 in "insurance" fees, and a long list of weapons simply would be banned.

Unconstitutional. Perhaps one day the Democrats will forward legislation that is, but it is not today.

It's amazing just how many people the Democrats have pissed off in just two weeks.

Dems push psychological evaluations for gun owners and 'family members'

Well, they can get a constitutional amendment drafted and we'll discuss it.

Before then, we'll go ahead and vote on TEXIT.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Shall not be infringed


Fck off demoquacks

Well Regulated Militia...

Fuck off, Fat Irish Sow.

the right of the people...

Fuck off, ass clown.

 

[Nostra]

A massive Democratic gun-control plan that could be called the "head shrink job protection bill" would require weapon owners and their family members to undergo "psychological evaluations."
Gun owners also would have to pay the government $800 in "insurance" fees, and a long list of weapons simply would be banned.

Unconstitutional. Perhaps one day the Democrats will forward legislation that is, but it is not today.

It's amazing just how many people the Democrats have pissed off in just two weeks.

Yes, the last thing we'd want is for crazy people to be denied access to guns.

Instead, we need to keep teaching our kids to do Active Shooter Drills and cower behind their desks.

Should we have the same evaluation before someone can speak his/her opinion....and if he/she fails they can't speak their opinion?

This is a yes or no question.