Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And why do you believe the Government has the right to be intrusive on this Constitutionally protected right? It is already illegal to buy or own firearms if adjudged mentally defective. One must be so judged by a competent authority, ie a JUDGE.Several of you have pointed out background checks are very fast. Can anyone detail what that information checks? If you look at many of the more recent school attacks, the attacker purchased multiple guns with in a relatively short period. So having purchased a gun before is more of a red flag true? Perhaps the background checks are missing important elements? Elements which might be helpful? For instance, has the purchaser had any recent domestic problems with police contact? Restraining orders?
I have no problem with a mentally healthly adult owning 50 guns and lots of ammunition. A responsible owner should also want guns to stay out of irresponsible owners hands. Reasonable steps to accomplish that seem good. No one is denying you your weapons, so there is no violation of your rights.
I personally believe a person should have to undergo a CAT scan once every five years in order to be able to buy and own firearms, No different than proving you are able to see in order to get a DL.
THe NCIC background check is relatively thorough in terms of uncovering any criminal activity, and also it checks for such things as TROs and other alerts, but that's it. It doesn't tell anyone if the person is sane or not, in fact a person can voluntarily lived in a physiatric ward and that won't show up on a back ground check
It's a useful tool, but a tool nonetheless.
And why do you believe the Government has the right to be intrusive on this Constitutionally protected right? It is already illegal to buy or own firearms if adjudged mentally defective. One must be so judged by a competent authority, ie a JUDGE.Several of you have pointed out background checks are very fast. Can anyone detail what that information checks? If you look at many of the more recent school attacks, the attacker purchased multiple guns with in a relatively short period. So having purchased a gun before is more of a red flag true? Perhaps the background checks are missing important elements? Elements which might be helpful? For instance, has the purchaser had any recent domestic problems with police contact? Restraining orders?
I have no problem with a mentally healthly adult owning 50 guns and lots of ammunition. A responsible owner should also want guns to stay out of irresponsible owners hands. Reasonable steps to accomplish that seem good. No one is denying you your weapons, so there is no violation of your rights.
I personally believe a person should have to undergo a CAT scan once every five years in order to be able to buy and own firearms, No different than proving you are able to see in order to get a DL.
It's a useful tool, but a tool nonetheless.
Several of you have pointed out background checks are very fast. Can anyone detail what that information checks? If you look at many of the more recent school attacks, the attacker purchased multiple guns with in a relatively short period. So having purchased a gun before is more of a red flag true? Perhaps the background checks are missing important elements? Elements which might be helpful? For instance, has the purchaser had any recent domestic problems with police contact? Restraining orders?
I have no problem with a mentally healthly adult owning 50 guns and lots of ammunition. A responsible owner should also want guns to stay out of irresponsible owners hands. Reasonable steps to accomplish that seem good. No one is denying you your weapons, so there is no violation of your rights.
got your panties in a knot because the flaming fairies of LaLa Land got slapped around by a CLINTON appointee?Today, a federal judge ruled that California’s 10-day waiting period is unconstitutional.
All 'waiting periods' are un-Constitutional, let's hope citizens in other states challenge their waiting periods as well where such provisions are also invalidated.
Agreed.
Fucking syxyst McDonald's, their drive-thru wait times are horrific at lunch. I can't wait for the wait times there to be abolished.
So you WANT to have 20-minute waiting periods at McDonald's? Unbelievable.
Actually, I wouldn't mind the wait as long as McDonald's had accessories and ammo on the menu too. Now that would be sweet: "Make it a Big Mac, fries, Coke and an order of .45 caliber rounds, please. Puts a new meaning on drive-by. But I suppose you're right. I mean, seriously, I could eat my burger and fries, wash 'em down and rob the place in less time.
As far as McDonalds goes, A) Gross B) They should have a weigh in before you can order. Sorry sir, you over 40 lbs overweight you can only have a salad"
And why do you believe the Government has the right to be intrusive on this Constitutionally protected right? It is already illegal to buy or own firearms if adjudged mentally defective. One must be so judged by a competent authority, ie a JUDGE.Several of you have pointed out background checks are very fast. Can anyone detail what that information checks? If you look at many of the more recent school attacks, the attacker purchased multiple guns with in a relatively short period. So having purchased a gun before is more of a red flag true? Perhaps the background checks are missing important elements? Elements which might be helpful? For instance, has the purchaser had any recent domestic problems with police contact? Restraining orders?
I have no problem with a mentally healthly adult owning 50 guns and lots of ammunition. A responsible owner should also want guns to stay out of irresponsible owners hands. Reasonable steps to accomplish that seem good. No one is denying you your weapons, so there is no violation of your rights.
I personally believe a person should have to undergo a CAT scan once every five years in order to be able to buy and own firearms, No different than proving you are able to see in order to get a DL.
It's a useful tool, but a tool nonetheless.
Because I believe we have too many mentally defective people in this country and they have too much access to guns
I acknowledge that ts a violation in much the same way Terry stops are violations, I just submit that the American jerk off deserves it just the same as all the DUI tickets prove Americans deserve Terry stops.
In short, once again the few have ruined it for the many.
Several of you have pointed out background checks are very fast. Can anyone detail what that information checks? If you look at many of the more recent school attacks, the attacker purchased multiple guns with in a relatively short period. So having purchased a gun before is more of a red flag true? Perhaps the background checks are missing important elements? Elements which might be helpful? For instance, has the purchaser had any recent domestic problems with police contact? Restraining orders?
I have no problem with a mentally healthly adult owning 50 guns and lots of ammunition. A responsible owner should also want guns to stay out of irresponsible owners hands. Reasonable steps to accomplish that seem good. No one is denying you your weapons, so there is no violation of your rights.
These are all laudable goals, but law-making bodies and the courts are not the proper entities to address the issue of mental illness and guns, where to seek through the legislative process to address that problem is to potentially violate the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment and the fundamental right to due process.
Background checks are Constitutional because citizens were afforded due process before their criminal records are placed in the database, the check itself doesn't manifest an undue burden, it's rationally based, has objective, documented evidence in support of its efficacy, and pursues a proper legislative end, as it's applied to everyone equally.
That's not the case with requiring a gun owner to pass a mental health test to justify his possession of firearms, absent evidence that he indeed might suffer from mental illness, while not affording him due process to compel the state to produce evidence of his mental illness that the citizen can challenge in a fair hearing.
Because a person who can't see isnt safe to drive. Ever. But people who are "mentally ill" own guns all the time and never have issues. What is "mentally ill" anyway? Schizophrenia? Depression? Manic behavior? Bipolar?Several of you have pointed out background checks are very fast. Can anyone detail what that information checks? If you look at many of the more recent school attacks, the attacker purchased multiple guns with in a relatively short period. So having purchased a gun before is more of a red flag true? Perhaps the background checks are missing important elements? Elements which might be helpful? For instance, has the purchaser had any recent domestic problems with police contact? Restraining orders?
I have no problem with a mentally healthly adult owning 50 guns and lots of ammunition. A responsible owner should also want guns to stay out of irresponsible owners hands. Reasonable steps to accomplish that seem good. No one is denying you your weapons, so there is no violation of your rights.
These are all laudable goals, but law-making bodies and the courts are not the proper entities to address the issue of mental illness and guns, where to seek through the legislative process to address that problem is to potentially violate the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment and the fundamental right to due process.
Background checks are Constitutional because citizens were afforded due process before their criminal records are placed in the database, the check itself doesn't manifest an undue burden, it's rationally based, has objective, documented evidence in support of its efficacy, and pursues a proper legislative end, as it's applied to everyone equally.
That's not the case with requiring a gun owner to pass a mental health test to justify his possession of firearms, absent evidence that he indeed might suffer from mental illness, while not affording him due process to compel the state to produce evidence of his mental illness that the citizen can challenge in a fair hearing.
Fundamentally , how is it any different than requiring a potential driver to pass an eye exam before allowing them to drive?
got your panties in a knot because the flaming fairies of LaLa Land got slapped around by a CLINTON appointee?Today, a federal judge ruled that California’s 10-day waiting period is unconstitutional.
All 'waiting periods' are un-Constitutional, let's hope citizens in other states challenge their waiting periods as well where such provisions are also invalidated.
Agreed.
Fucking syxyst McDonald's, their drive-thru wait times are horrific at lunch. I can't wait for the wait times there to be abolished.
So you WANT to have 20-minute waiting periods at McDonald's? Unbelievable.
Actually, I wouldn't mind the wait as long as McDonald's had accessories and ammo on the menu too. Now that would be sweet: "Make it a Big Mac, fries, Coke and an order of .45 caliber rounds, please. Puts a new meaning on drive-by. But I suppose you're right. I mean, seriously, I could eat my burger and fries, wash 'em down and rob the place in less time.
As far as McDonalds goes, A) Gross B) They should have a weigh in before you can order. Sorry sir, you over 40 lbs overweight you can only have a salad"
So how do we keep guns from the mentally unstable without a waiting period?
There is no way to stop a determined bad guy except by shooting him when he presents a threat. all this gun control, magaxzine capacity, mental health crap is bullshit.So how do we keep guns from the mentally unstable without a waiting period?
You're right...the waiting period that didn't stop Columbine, the two fort hood shootings, the Santa Barbara shootings, the colorado theater shooting, the navy yard shooting, the pearl mississippi shooting, the shooting at Newton...
Without waiting periods...how will we stop...er....I guess waiting periods are just as effective as background checks, registering weapons, limiting magazines....
A tin foil hat is just as effective as waiting periods at stopping violent criminals or mass shooters...
The best method to stop violent criminals, and mass shooters...armed civilians on the scene until the police arrive with their guns...
It seems to me, the biggest threat the left can mount against the 2nd Amendment is the mentally ill in mass shootings. You make reasonable steps to reduce that and they have little argument .
So how do we keep guns from the mentally unstable without a waiting period?
You're right...the waiting period that didn't stop Columbine, the two fort hood shootings, the Santa Barbara shootings, the colorado theater shooting, the navy yard shooting, the pearl mississippi shooting, the shooting at Newton...
Without waiting periods...how will we stop...er....I guess waiting periods are just as effective as background checks, registering weapons, limiting magazines....
A tin foil hat is just as effective as waiting periods at stopping violent criminals or mass shooters...
The best method to stop violent criminals, and mass shooters...armed civilians on the scene until the police arrive with their guns...
It's an infringement.We don't let felons own guns and the mentally unstable probably shouldn't either. So the problem seems to be the lack of a system to determine that. Just how exactly are your right to arms violated with a mental/criminal background check?
It is his penalty for infringing upon another person's rights.
Agreed.
Fucking syxyst McDonald's, their drive-thru wait times are horrific at lunch. I can't wait for the wait times there to be abolished.
Cool, now wife beater's won't have to wait so long to put the bitch in her place. What a wonderful thing to celebrate (sarcasm).
It is his penalty for infringing upon another person's rights.
that is pretty much brain dead
