Ummm, whaa? Why would they take the gun before going to court to see if you can handle your own finances? That same slippery slope mentality could be applied to any restriction.
Because of Red Flag laws already passed in certain states and now Dump wants this enforced by the Fed nationwide.
So let proper due process happen in front of a judge and jury, make the case and prove it. You cant just allow governments to freely charge people with a crime because government's discretion tells them someone may be dangerous. If there is a legitimate threat such as found online, get a warrant and make an arrest of course.
I don't understand why you think that's not the case in the situation we've been discussing. You have to be declared, by a judge, mentally incompetent to handle your own finances.So let proper due process happen in front of a judge and jury, make the case and prove it. You cant just allow governments to freely charge people with a crime because government's discretion tells them someone may be dangerous. If there is a legitimate threat such as found online, get a warrant and make an arrest of course.
Empowering government to act on pre-crimes is a dangerous territory nobody should take lightly as it is a direct violation of the 5th and 14th Amendment. Once you start compromising everyone's rights and proper safeguards its close to impossible to get them back.
I know you care though, this isnt personal against your beliefs so say what you gotta say and we can debate
Who said the threshold is ability to control finances? Mental illness runs the spectrum form mild depression to severe schizophrenia and includes a lot of people who have been misdiagnosed. I agree the same slippery slope mentality can be used like that and is often used to confuse the issue so that people simply stop talking about it until the next time there is a tragedy and then rinse, repeat. I'm not arguing with you on what the intention of the law will be. I'm simply pointing out how easy it is to exploit the hell out of it based on what already happens with insurance companies and any government agency that bases their qualifications on medical history.
You're using criteria for when the government needs to give you something. They won't use the same criteria for when they want to take something.
I've been speaking within the context of the Obama rule that Trump rolled back. It had two very specific provisions that I don't think could be very easily misused.
Stripping someone’s constitutional rights should be judged by ones peers, not a dictator. But it’s not just that...
Just to clarify I’m not completely familiar with the Obama rule yet but I’m taking about not only what multiple states have implemented but now Prezidump Dump wants to implement nationwide.
I actually can't think of an ex that would have a problem with me having a gun but I've never gone out with a pill popper. Every restriction has some theoretical potential for abuse. Ideally a judge will reasonable but the key word there is ideally. If there was some rash of unjustified additions to the list when this was in effect, show me the data.
Yeah, but that's in the context of social security checks, correct? That doesn't mean it'll translate. Property is seized all the time and if you have a lawyer to pursue illegal search and seizure claims, great, but there's a huge portion of the population that can't afford that. How about custody of a kid? Think any judges have been swayed because dad is taking a benzo?
He is a genocidal maniac and selling US weapons to terrorists in Saudi Arabia while lecturing Americans on what is right or wrong.
Trust me I agree that we shouldn't stigmatize mental illness but I don't think putting someone who themself applied for SS benefits because there illness precludes them holding a job or someone who can't be trusted with their own money on the no-guns list is going to lead to fathers with anxiety losing their kid...
So all you need is "inappropriate suspiciousness" or if Im moody to qualify for SS and be criminalized to carry protection.
I have been the biggest voice here on pro-decriminalization of drugs (legal isnt a name I would like to slap on drugs,) of course you know where I stand on guns too.
Cool. So, wild west meets thunderdome then?So all you need is "inappropriate suspiciousness" or if Im moody to qualify for SS and be criminalized to carry protection.
Seems like we are creating deterrents to allow people to get help. If I had anxiety and "inappropriate suspicions" the last thing I would want to do is go get help knowing the government will strip my of my Constitutional Rights.
I dont think we are solving anything, and if one is deemed to be dangerous to society to carry a strap, what would stop them from hijacking a school bus with a knife and driving it off a cliff or into a pond? If this is the route we take perhaps we should just lock all "aggressive" people up for life to keep our children safe.
Oh and even "passiveness" qualifies for SS....those are the primary people I would want owning guns RRROOOFFFLLL!!!!!
"Personality Disorders
To qualify for Social Security benefits with a personality disorder, you need evidence showing that your condition causes you to be unable to adapt to social or work situations and that the condition has caused long term problems. The disorder needs to cause at least one of these symptoms:
Source:
- Autistic thinking
- Seclusion
- Inappropriate hostility
- Inappropriate suspiciousness
- Odd thought, speech, behavior, or perception patterns
- Aggressiveness
- Dependence
- Passiveness
- Constant mood disturbances
- Impulsive, damaging behavior, especially regarding relationships"
Can I Qualify for Disability with a Mental Illness? (Updated for 2023)
You could get disability for mental illness. Don’t Delay! Get Your Free Disability Evaluation.www.disability-benefits-help.org
So nothing can be done?
what do you suggest to get rid of illegal firearms in gang infested large city areas? many large city's already have strong gun laws since they are democratic controlled. the way it is set up now, getting guns out of these areas would be about as successful as ridding them of drugs.
Government will get the guns back in through the black market to empower their drug cartels.
Making guns illegal is only great for bu$ine$$, besides government, thugs, gangs and other criminals have alot to gain. Would be a terrorists paradise too.
And some thugs in power would never stop short of pulling it all off if they had a chance. So its plan B and incrementally get there over a long period of time.
So, just to be clear, you're advocating for doing nothing?
no, I am saying I don't see any solution working without suspension of rights....what are you advocating?
I know you asked BigT but I say there is alot we can do. First and foremost make it easier for good people to carry guns with them. Have open carry like Vermont, make it a choice. Create a well educated gun culture starting with young public education, self defense tactics and responsibility. Allow teachers to have guns in schools. Heck, allow our Military Personal carry guns on their own military bases (remember the attack here in the states not long ago?)
I wonder how people in Hong Kong will feel about suspension of rights if they get trampled over with tanks just like they did in 1989 in Beijing?????
If there is an financial incentive for me to get a free check then perhaps Im saying yes.
For a start, reinstating the restrictions I've been discussing above.
350 million is a lot of guns, what do you suggest for enforcement?
Yeah, but that's what any law does (takes away rights). Just because I think the speed limit should be increased, doesn't mean I think rape should be legal. It's a question of what people are willing to live with and gun sales are mostly driven by fear, unless you're 100% buying it for sport, which does occur. Fear isn't going anywhere, so neither are guns and neither are mass shootings.
I agree, I don't think any law will take guns out of the hands of anyone who wants one-any more than drug laws have stopped drug use.
It didn't even seem like satire, thought it was a thriller lol.
sports, entertainment, social media are all dominated by liberals here.
The law would (ideally) prevent the purchase of a firearm. It's not about confiscating anyone's existing property. So enforcement would be these things being added to peoples' background check info. Obviously this is only a partial solution but it seems so basic; people opposing it is kind of baffling to me.
You'll be glad to know that Trump is drafting some more executive orders to address that. Although, that involves taking away first amendment rights and taking rights away is bad...
One of the biggest reasons people push back on it is because of marketing from the NRA and others making money off of guns. The second they hear anything about guns and regulation, their minds automatically start thinking of people coming to take all of their guns. They're not hearing severe mental illness or common sense background checks because they don't care about those things. Those are just words they say out loud when these shootings happen to make it look like they care. You'll also hear things like you're more likely to die from getting struck by lightening while riding a cow because that somehow makes it better.
a law is only as good as it's enforcement. if cops stopped giving speeding tickets speed limits would be irrelevant.
maybe this will surprise you....I don't agree with everything trump says or does-this is one of those things. too many consequences involved not to go through congress.
You're using the premise that nobody has ever been stopped from purchasing a gun and that's simply not true. There are several other countries where gun control laws have been shown to work. This study done here in the US showed that states with stricter gun laws had decreased suicides and homicides https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-019-04922-x
