Lindsey Graham: Democrats, GOP Can ‘Come Together’ for Gun Confiscation Law

[Drail]

The real problem here are all of the drugs that are handed out by the millions by doctors to people for "depression" or "anxiety". Read about psychotropic drugs used by the psychatric industry. You will be shocked. People are prescribed this stuff with NO monitoring of any effects on them. My mother in law was placed on a very powerful drug because some doctor decided she was depressed. Now this drug is ONLY to be used for 30 days max. according to the manufacturer. The doctor kept her on it for 35 years! He never checked back and evaluated its effects on her brain. He just kept giving all the drugs she wanted. She is now pretty much a vegetable. All perfectly legal. I recently found out that my own mother has been on these drugs for about a year with no monitoring and no notice to the family that she was even on these drugs or what their effects were. Now she is a vegetable. It's a multi billion dollar industry for the pharmaceutical companies and the doctors who sell them. All of the mass shooters we see today have been on these drugs for years with no monitoring. Every single one of them. Back in the 1970s these people would be locked away in a State mental hospital. Now we just give them a bottle of pills and turn them loose on the streets. THAT is the problem we are seeing today. It's not about violent video games or poor parenting or easy access to guns - it's all about extremely dangerous psychotropic drugs. And the companies that make and sell them get rich.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Back in the 1970s these people would be locked away in a State mental hospital. Now we just give them a bottle of pills and turn them loose on the streets. THAT is the problem we are seeing today. It's not about violent video games or poor parenting or easy access to guns - it's all about extremely dangerous psychotropic drugs. And the companies that make and sell them get rich.

While I think many of the problems in society can be attributed to lousy parenting, I agree wholeheartedly that big pharma is a big problem. We have a massively over-medicated society, drugs to treat the side effects of other drugs that were prescribed to balance yet another drug. I've also see first hand how quick mental health facilities are to make a few changes to the pharmaceutical regimen and turn people loose who should be held for weeks or months to actually treat, not temporarily pacified and sent back out into society after a few days. As with most bad things, it can be traced to $$$.

 

[edwardware]

You demean the true origin of these words. Your cause is nothing compared to the cause represented by the original words you are paraphrasing.

You're wrong. Our cause is the SAME cause as theirs. They wanted to live, and so do we. We just happen to be talking about it a little earlier in the downward slide to murderous tyranny.

I would gladly give up my guns to bring back even just one of the folks slaughtered in the Holocaust.

That's nonsensical, but you certainly do sound like a good little subject, declaring your willingness to submissive walk to your own demise.

 

[rpenmanparker]

I see BSA1’s comment as a metaphor. If you want to give up your guns for any reason you may do so. This thread is about government intrusion and keeping it in check. I would think you would see that, given the reference you cited.

Well that is another view. Thanks for your insight. I would not have thought of it that way, myself.

I also wouldn't have characterized the situation as government intrusion. Government isn't the actor here, it is the tool. The folks who are intruding are our fellow citizens, most of whom do not agree with us about the importance of gun ownership by individuals. They are trying to use government to accomplish their goal, much as we do to maintain the status quo. It is terribly important that we understand what is really happening. Blaming attempts at confiscation on government totally mischaracterizes the situation and weakens our efforts.

 

[BSA1]

You demean the true origin of these words. Your cause is nothing compared to the cause represented by the original words you are paraphrasing. I would gladly give up my guns to bring back even just one of the folks slaughtered in the Holocaust.

Noble words but..

Then you do not really understand the changes that took place to make the Holocaust happen. Or to keep this gun related the changes that the Media, educators in Public Schools and Colleges. liberals and politicians are making to create a society that does not believe in private gun ownership.

 

[Jared Campbell]

I live in Oregon and they have the same law, but if I am not mistaken there must be some evidence supporting whether it’s lawful to take firearms away from that individual. This law is still unconstitutional in my eyes!

 

[Speedo66]

A metaphor yes, but nowhere near the comparison of what happened in the holocaust. It's like liberals calling people nazis who disagree with them. The horror of the nazis cannot begin to compare to a liberal's idea of someone slightly to the right of them.

The idea of taking guns from mentally ill people is, of course, the right one. The whole issue is in how it will be carried out.

 

[rpenmanparker]

You're wrong. Our cause is the SAME cause as theirs. They wanted to live, and so do we. We just happen to be talking about it a little earlier in the downward slide to murderous tyranny.


That's nonsensical, but you certainly do sound like a good little subject, declaring your willingness to submissive walk to your own demise.

I'm for gun ownership, but I don't impart the mystical attributes to it that many others do. First of all we are nearly unique in our right to gun ownership. That is good for us, but not having guns isn't so bad for many others who enjoy governmental systems like ours. It shouldn't be hard to see that it is not owning guns that is protecting our freedom. It is our form of government, our dedication to the principles of democracy, our heterogeneity, and so many other aspects. Thinking our freedom is all or even a lot about guns is as dangerous an error as can possibly be made in the modern world. Such a mistake for example can lead to our greedily fondling our guns all the while accepting horrible government. That is where the danger is, the decay of our democracy, not the loss of our guns. Fix the democracy, and you will never have to worry about using your guns to fend off the government or repel the unwashed masses. Let the democracy continue to rot, and no guns, no matter how big, how powerful, how many, can ever protect you. I hope the RKBA is never lost, but I don't foolishly impart magical power to it. It isn't protecting us. Only our diligence as good citizens and (little d, little r) democratic republicans can do that.

 

[DeepSouth]

The idea of taking guns from mentally ill people is, of course, the right one. The whole issue is in how it will be carried out.

I have to say, that statement makes me uneasy.

Statically the mentality ill are much, much more likely to be the victim of crime, than the perpetrator of it. Not to imply that crime rates aren’t higher among the mentality ill, if memory servers over 1/2 of American prisoners have some kind of mental illness. The point is the same tool they can use for defense against their high rate of abuse and attack, is the same tool they can use to perpetrate an attack. You can’t really take one and leave the other.


Theirs also the problem of people not wanting to seek help because it may very well cause them to permanently lose rights, no way around that. It’s already happening to be honest.

Most importantly a standard legal definition for “mental illness” needs to be inplace. If it is not, ADD and Narcolepsy may well qualify, and that’s why I don’t believe a plain, reasonable definition will ever be given, at least by lawmakers.


FWIW, I’m not saying I disagree with your statement, I’m just saying it’s a very simplistic view (or at least simplistic statement) of an extremely complex problem. One to which I do not claim to have an answer.

 

[Pat Riot]

I am going to opt out of any more responses to this thread as anything more I say on the matter will tick some people off and detract from the original premise of this thread.

 

[rpenmanparker]

Noble words but..

Then you do not really understand the changes that took place to make the Holocaust happen. Or to keep this gun related the changes that the Media, educators in Public Schools and Colleges. liberals and politicians are making to create a society that does not belief in private gun ownership.

The rise in disbelief in private gun ownership is a natural result of the urbanization of the society.

 

[Speedo66]

The sad thing is many of the people committing the headline grabbing mass shootings were either in treatment or on someone's list of crazies.

Someone in authority was aware of their proclivities and didn't act on it.

 

[GEM]

We have gone off the rails. I will give it a chance to continue. We should discuss:

1. Is there a way to determine who is truly dangerous to own firearms in a fair manner that respects Constitutional rights?
2. If there is such a determination, can it be acted on in a timely and fair manner?

Liberals, conservatives, Holocaust metaphore - let's skip that.

BTW, psychiatric or psychological problems in general do not predict violence. There are specific warning signs and behaviors for a small number of circumstances. Are the Red Flag laws too general? That's a point that must be discussed. Various psychological and psychiatric organizations have brought this up and mentioned the risk that folks who need help won't seek it because of threatened stigma and legal actions.

So let's focus on the problem and not the usual side insults.

 

[Mosin Bubba]

MachIV pretty much nailed the legal aspects of this on the first page.

Rest of the post deleted in light of the mod post 3 minutes earlier.

 

[SharpDog]

We have gone off the rails. I will give it a chance to continue. We should discuss:

1. Is there a way to determine who is truly dangerous to own firearms in a fair manner that respects Constitutional rights?
2. If there is such a determination, can it be acted on in a timely and fair manner?

Liberals, conservatives, Holocaust metaphore - let's skip that.

BTW, psychiatric or psychological problems in general do not predict violence. There are specific warning signs and behaviors for a small number of circumstances. Are the Red Flag laws too general? That's a point that must be discussed. Various psychological and psychiatric organizations have brought this up and mentioned the risk that folks who need help won't seek it because of threatened stigma and legal actions.

So let's focus on the problem and not the usual side insults.

Personally, If you are seeking help of one professional (a judge) to restrict the rights of an individual, you should have the qualifications of another professional (a psychiatrist, doctor or psychologist).

I vehemently disagree with any such law but I would feel (slightly) better about this if the party seeking to restrict the right to bear arms had gone through some professional certification and could have that certification revoked for misuse.

So my process would be that family members or law enforcement could have you interviewed by a professional BEFORE they restricted your RKBA. IDK, this may already be the case without any additional laws.

 

[Jared Campbell]

Laws like these open the door not only for interpretation but open the door to something more tyrannical! There are certain individuals that should own firearms, like I believe there are some individuals who shouldn’t be allowed to have children.

 

[GEM]

Laws are obviously open to interpretation. The jurors in a case interpret your actions. The judge need not have mental health training per se although it would be good if legal education contained some reasonable exposure to the issues. The decision of a judge should be informed by unbiased mental health professionals as done in sanity and competency hearings.

The issue is the standards and protections for the individual in a Red Flag law.

A lower burden of proof that can be misused by malicious actors is the flaw in such laws as Mach pointed out.

 

[edwardware]

1. Is there a way to determine who is truly dangerous to own firearms in a fair manner that respects Constitutional rights?

Yes, of course, we do it all the time. "No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . . " (5th Amendment). Due process of law is the method used to deprive persons of Constitutionally protected life, liberty, or property. For good reason, Due Process is almost always predicted on an action the person is alleged to have committed.

The dangers of "Pre-Crime" (really No-Crime) Law Enforcement are so well known they are the subject of an entire genre of fiction (and some history). From witch hunts (medieval Europe to Salem, MA) to McCarthy's Red Hunt to the Soviet NKVD arresting Enem(ies) of the People, whenever you see someone being charged for what they intend do instead of what they did, you can be sure you're looking at a tyranny.

2. If there is such a determination, can it be acted on in a timely and fair manner?

Yes, of course, we do it all the time. The process is simple; the State, acting on our behalf, accuses the person of a criminal action, and takes the case to court.

 

[Labguy47]

I can’t wait until this happens to a secret service detail. Especially for someone protecting an anti.

 

[Jared Campbell]

Think outside the box guns have been demonized as something bad, and the downgrade of society where mass shootings have become the new normal. What we are seeing is a culture change kids and adults can no longer except criticism, rejection or even except their own accountability. This leads to violence in which multiple people end up dying, and once again the gun is placed as the main fault. The society we have now that jump on the bandwagon of banning guns, because they believe the lies that if guns are banned than violence, we be abolished these idiots are sheep. All laws are up for interpretation this is true, but interpterion of laws and the constitution will lead back to Tyranny, Government knows if they can outlaw guns and be successful at complete gun confiscation than they have power over the people.

Parkland is a great example, would having a Red Flag law than stopped the shooting well it depends. Point 1 the kid purchased the guns legally and point 2 the community including the school new this kid was a red flag! They did nothing but drop the ball on this kid, and he ended up doing what he did.

So will red flag laws be good to stop future shootings, or will it be another assault on the 2nd Amendment eventually being a loop hole to strip guns from law abiding citizens. So, who knows I can make point after point, but it’s obvious the US Constitution is in trouble from both Republicans and Democrats!

 

[Walkalong]

I am adamantly against red flag laws. It goes against the most basic form of due process.

Yep, and freedom in general.

 

[Walkalong]

I also wouldn't have characterized the situation as government intrusion. Government isn't the actor here, it is the tool. The folks who are intruding are our fellow citizens, most of whom do not agree with us about the importance of gun ownership by individuals. They are trying to use government to accomplish their goal, much as we do to maintain the status quo. It is terribly important that we understand what is really happening. Blaming attempts at confiscation on government totally mischaracterizes the situation and weakens our efforts.

You are clearly confused on the subject or a willing participant. It is 100% about government and what power we give to them, power they would use against you. Power to confiscate weapons, power to put you in jail, power to rule your every day life in the end. Wake up.

 

[LiveLife]

I also wouldn't have characterized the situation as government intrusion. Government isn't the actor here, it is the tool. The folks who are intruding are our fellow citizens, most of whom do not agree with us about the importance of gun ownership by individuals. They are trying to use government to accomplish their goal, much as we do to maintain the status quo.

Democracy allows the will of the masses to be imposed on the rights of few.

Republic does not allow the will of the masses to be imposed on the rights of few.

This is the difference our founding fathers made by making this country a Constitutional Republic. There are many law makers who know the difference. Apparently some of our law makers have forgotten or ignore this fact.

And "we the people" can vote them out and replace them with law makers who recognize the difference. Keep track of which law makers support "red flag" laws and vote them out.

 

[Old Dog]

Now that our society and the government has legitimized using children to lobby again guns and kids are being taught in public schools "if you see something, say something," I almost feel as though we could be headed in the same direction as the Third Reich in the 1930s ... children being indoctrinated to inform on adults (not only in cases of serious wrongdoing, i.e., child abuse, but primarily in cases where the adults are resisting to the government's bidding or displaying disagreement with any aspect of the government).

No chance this will be misused by ex-spouses and girlfriends. None at all.

Just as though bogus allegations of physical or sexual abuse toward one party or children are used in contentious divorce proceedings.

The issue is the standards and protections for the individual in a Red Flag law.

And if you read the standards imposed by the Red Flag laws in states that already have instituted them, the standard (and burden of proof) is typically far too low to offer protections against misuse of these laws.

Veterans who have been treated for PTSD, anxiety, depression, anger management and the like are likely to be the largest group that will suffer from widespread adoption of these laws. One also is left to wonder about the potential for anti-gun health care providers to subjectively provide information about a person they believe might be a risk to public safety.

 

[GEM]

Instead of complaining, with some justification about the laws, I would be interested in what you would propose to deal with people who seem not able to handle their affairs or present behavior and threats that same dangerous. How do you separate them from the enraged Ex scenario? Just being negative won't fly in today' world.