BLACKHAWKNJ
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,134
Define "mental health". There are those who argue that an interest in firearms is a mental abberation.
That would be after a crime had been committed, there was a criminal trial, and the person was found not guilty by reason of insanity.There used to be confinement for the criminally insane. Not much different from prison, I figure.
If a person is constantly drooling and wetting the bed (typical of those being institutionalized back in the day), I doubt that such a person would have it together enough to obtain a gun, plan a mass shooting, and carry it out. No, mass shooters may be severely troubled, but they're at least marginally competent and appear "normal" to those not familiar with them. This is why so many of them have no problem getting guns through the regular FFL channels.The wailing and the bedding being dried outside stays with one.
That would be after a crime had been committed, there was a criminal trial, and the person was found not guilty by reason of insanity.
This kind of confinement would do nothing to prevent the crime in the first place. (Not a solution to the problem we're currently facing.)
We do not have a gun problem, we have a mental health problem. The mentally ill should not be loose on the streets.
We'll get to this in the 3rd quote.Rumor is that it belongs to someone else.
Really? They were? Did you report this to the ATF? Or are you part of the problem by ignoring it? Let's be real here, 99.99% of gun stores would never let this happen. Marijuana is still a federal crime. Question 21 F on the 4473 explains that if you're addicted to marijuana or other illegal drugs you're prohibited from owning a gun. If the FFL knows that you're using marijuana, you're a prohibited person. They aren't going to sell you a gun. If you answer no to this question while you're actually addicted to marijuana, you just committed a felony. Do you really think a gun shop is going to risk losing their FFL and all future gun sales to make a few dollars off of one or two sales? Especially a gun store that's grown big enough to be a chain? Without their FFL they give up their livelihood. I think not.You guys think about it all wrong. Its not a post about taking liberties away its a post that certain people should not have access to firearms. When they were handing out free money the local gang bangers lined a local chain of gun stores smelling like marijuana and not a single person questioned it because all they were worried about was $. I also overheard a few straw purchases too. No one is trying to strip the 2a but something needs done.
Didn't you say above that the "rumor is that it belongs to someone else"? Now you've changed your mind and it must have come from a gun show? Just be honest, you're making **** up again. You have no idea where the gun came from. You don't know if he bought it from an FFL after passing a background check, bought it in a private sale, or stole it from someone. Statistically very very few of these guns used in these crimes were obtained through a private sale.I would put $ that kid obtained said shotgun from a gun show because he had a bunch of Russian slugs to go with it and just talking to him you could tell he was way off in left field and even looking at him you could tell he was waiting to snap. I’ve never seen so much hatred in someones face before.
You want FFL's to discriminate against people based solely on their looks? Got it.If you walk in and look like a nutcase it should be delayed at least.
Let's see some screenshots of some of these sales. This shouldn't be a problem since you see them all the time. Right?Yes, they will get from bad guys but it seems like its too easy to flip a gun. I see gun sales all the time on Facebook groups by some sketchy individuals. Especially when they are selling guns worth $600-800 for $200 and its yours.
Aren't we all. None of us want to see innocent people get killed. Making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to defend themselves against criminals who clearly don't care about the law isn't the answer though.Idk. I’m just tired of seeing innocent people getting killed.
So you're admitting that they don't need a gun to kill people? Why aren't you advocating for background checks for people that own automobiles? Do you want car salesmen to discriminate based on looks when it comes to who is allowed to buy a car too? What about a kitchen knife? Or a fork? Baseball bat? Or any one of the other number of things that people use to kill people.A guy in a car drove head on and put an innocent 70yo woman in ICU because he wanted to kill himself and drove head on into her and others. Again, not a gun issue its lets not make it so easy for someone with problems to have weapons.
Something is done. It's already illegal for them to own firearms if this is the case. Show us some court cases as proof of what you see "every day". Since you see it that often, it should be no problem to find a bunch of examples for us. How about start by posting 10? Can't do that? How about 5?.........The point is that something needs done to stop people who have been deemed to have mental health issues from owning a firearm. I see it every day where a guy goes to court and the judge says surrender all firearms. Sir i don’t have any and he takes them on their word. PD then gets a call saying xyz didn’t turn in all the guns he said he had and now he’s threatening to kill his entire family. But, wait a minute he said he only had 1 handgun and it was turned in, come to find out he has 12 guns and also been in and out of mental wards.
Well, you do realize that the whole point of UBC's is to create a "registration" right? When the FFL logs it in their books, this is exactly what it's doing. It's creating a database that the ATF can use to "trace" firearms. Regardless of what they call it, it's a registration.I’m not saying let them know who has what, i am 1000% against that. I’m saying if John Doe gets admitted to a mental hospital or any sort of mental health meds, severe issue, etc. his ability to own guns is gone.
Pretty sure every single member of this forum understands that, even the OP to whom you directed your responses.Well, you do realize that the whole point of UBC's is to create a "registration" right? When the FFL logs it in their books, this is exactly what it's doing. It's creating a database that the ATF can use to "trace" firearms. Regardless of what they call it, it's a registration.
We get what the OP was saying. Believe it or not, lots of people that suffer mental illness understand they are having mental issues, and their desire to keep their gun rights isn't the thing keeping them from getting help. It does appear you don't have a clear understanding of how and why doctors prescribe certain medications as well.You're saying you don't want people to attempt to get help if they need it out of fear of losing their firearms? This is exactly what will happen. Do you want them to just ignore the help they need and remain out there on the street? You also want people to lose their rights when doctors are getting kick backs for prescribing a certain medication, push it on someone that doesn't need it. Yet you aren't trying to take people's constitutional right away? Do you think we're all idiots?
Taking the absolutist position does our side absolutely no good. The OP brings up issues that we -- in our community -- need to be having with each other. Not accepting this means that you have no idea what you're talking about.Just be honest. You have no idea what you're talking about.
I have a pretty clear understanding of how much corruption there is in the medical industry.We get what the OP was saying. Believe it or not, lots of people that suffer mental illness understand they are having mental issues, and their desire to keep their gun rights isn't the thing keeping them from getting help. It does appear you don't have a clear understanding of how and why doctors prescribe certain medications as well.
There is absolutely zero reason we should listen to the OP spew this bs without calling him out for it. If he wants to come back with actual facts, then we can have a rational conversation.Taking the absolutist position does our side absolutely no good. The OP brings up issues that we -- in our community -- need to be having with each other. Not accepting this means that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Haven't read all the posts in the thread (including my post previous to the one you quoted), eh? I have firsthand knowledge of all this, immediate family in big pharma and medicine as well as time on the street and in institutions.I have a pretty clear understanding of how much corruption there is in the medical industry.
It's pretty well documented. Take some time to read up on how the opioid crisis started.
Making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to defend themselves against criminals who clearly don't care about the law isn't the answer though.
Explain how it's "BS"? I'll wait...You are the one spouting "BS" such as this:
My entire thing is limit people with mental health concerns, not every day people.
Here's a clue: Those people who desire to keep and bear arms for self-defense, defense of family and home typically already own a firearm (or firearms).Explain how it's "BS"? I'll wait...
We have UBC's in our state, and it's become a major pain to buy a used gun from another individual.
If you can’t see that our 2a rights are under attack as well as our 1st and 4th Amendment rights, then you need to educate yourself. As for the omg they are going to take my rights away, I agree, having them constantly under attack is getting a little old and extreme.No one is trying to strip the 2a but something needs done. If you walk in and look like a nutcase it should be delayed at least. I tell ya some of this omg they gonna take away my rights gets a little old and extreme.
As a veteran cop who's seen the end results of Jimmy Carter's and Ronald Reagan's push to end mental health facilities, I'm well aware of who's to blame and the problem on our streets.That ship has sailed.
Not only are the mentally ill loose on the streets, many are also homeless, which is another crisis in itself. Most mental health facilities throughout the country have long been shuttered (and it's pointless, at this point, to assign blame for that), and those mentally ill that are institutionalized are in county jails and state prisons. Government funding for state mental health hospitals is something we won't see again in our lifetime. Hell, we're gonna be lucky to see continued funding for outpatient treatment.
I've worked the streets, the jail and for a bit in a prison. I've got an immediate family member that's worked for a long time in "behavioral health."
Out there, it's worse than probably most of you think.
And beyond that, most citizens believe that it IS a gun problem. That genie isn't going back in the bottle, ever.
So for those of you that take the absolutist position that we shouldn't try to restrict even potentially mentally ill persons from owning firearms (however that looks like in your minds), you're simply muddying the waters. At this point, it certainly looks as though "red flag laws" are here to stay, universal background checks will be the law of the land, and HIPAA is out the window for anyone that will ever want to procure a firearm anywhere in the U.S. in the future. Cry about due process all you want, but those that understand the concept are in the minority and won't get a vote. Oh, and even if (by some miracle) there is a "red wave" in the next few general elections, sorry folks, those people aren't gonna reverse what's already happening.
Largest growing segment of gun owners are women and minorities. They grew up in households without a firearm and as adults are buying guns for the first time in record numbers.Here's a clue: Those people who desire to keep and bear arms for self-defense, defense of family and home typically already own a firearm (or firearms).
You are simply describing the new reality with regard to the hassle of purchasing firearms in the present day.
Relatively rare are the situations in life in which an individual realizes there is an immediate threat to themselves, and they require a firearm now.
You are also presuming that the sole option for defending oneself against a known threat is a firearm. The firearm should always be the last option.
There is always a bigger picture; it seems we in the RKBA community too often tend to view every problem through our particular lenses, which often results in ignoring much basic reality.
And ironically, Prohibition was the catalyst for the federal gun control laws.And no one is advocating stopping the sale of alcoholic beverages today. Oh, wait, the nation gave into a bunch of nosey old bidddies back in the early 20th century and did that very thing, banning booze. How did that work out? It DID NOT. All it did was create a new class of criminal and many deaths among gangsters fighting over territory to sell their bootleg whiskey which John Q Public was eager to keep on buying. I wonder how many innocents last their lives in these shootings as collateral damage just because they wanted something the government had made illegal for no reason except to please a bunch of harpies that had no understanding of human nature.
No other thing gets blamed for unneeded deaths except firearms. Too d--- many people want to tell us how to live and when they eventually get rid of our firearms they will be able to do so and the general public will have to accept it as they have given up their means to rebel. Welcome back to the days of King George. The only difference will be that the colonists had firearms to fight back and we won't.
and don't ever think it can't happen again....kwguy - Oh, wait, the nation gave into a bunch of nosey old [fill in the blank] . . .
When prohibition ended in 1933, all those soon to be unemployed beverage agents needed a new mission to stay on the payroll. Uncle Sam came to their rescue and created the 1934 National Firearms Act and gave them all new reasons to be collecting a paycheck via the taxpayer.And ironically, Prohibition was the catalyst for the federal gun control laws.
The Valentine's Day Massacre has also been given "credit" for initiating GCA 34 since it was so dramatic. My take on it is people looked at it the wrong way. They should have seen it as seven or eight crooks being removed from society by the Thompson Method without the costs of trials and imprisonment.And ironically, Prohibition was the catalyst for the federal gun control laws.