Trump releases policy paper on Second Amendment...

[danez71]

The media angle isn't going to change.

We live in instantaneous in an Information Age. I get any major development in the nation popping up on my phone within 15minutes of it happening.

It's simply not realistic to expect 21'st century media to play by rules you grew up with in the 50's when the news was a paper you bought in the morning or .5 hour in the afternoon on one of three alphabet soup networks. The genie is out of that bottle and will NEVER go back in. People consume however much news they wish today primarily online. What you are advocating is rationing of information by the .gov.....what could possibly go wrong?

Complaining about this is like complaining about the sun rising in the east.

If anything we have become desensitized to violent acts by mentally ill people.

Exactly



"To be fair, if he is diligent in following whatever he thinks to be 'the pulse' of his constituency, that is kind of how he's supposed to proceed as an elected representative. To be realistic, I think it's a dangerous method to governance (one that nearly all politicians are now guilty of) to rely on polls, since they short-circuit the time between elections that helps dampen ideological drift, making 'snap decisions' based in popular panic or short-sighted benefits more likely. A proper statesman would have some capacity to filter the noise from the chaff, and not simply follow the wind because a poll says to do so is most popular. If all our politicians operate on present-day opinion, we might as well not even have them, and do everything as a direct democracy via internet polls "


What makes you think that they aren't looking at polls and keep looking at subsequent polls to see how the publics "ideological drift" changes as part of their 'filtering of the noise'?

I would contend that they aren't paying attention to their constituents if they ignore the polls all together.

And since when has a politicians making 'snap decisions' been problem?

Snap, knee jerk decision to make aproposal and sound bite filled photo-ops maybe. Snap decisions on policy being a problem...? You'll need to provide some examples of those

 

[Nom de Forum]

Trump’s policy statement issues.

1. Enforce the laws on the books.
2. Fix our broken mental health system.
3. Guns and Magazine bans
4. Background Checks
5. National Right to Carry
6. Military Bases and Recruiting Centers


I have been thinking about how to prioritize the six items in Trump’s list. So far the best thing I have come up with is to think of them in terms of masonry architecture. I think of these six items not as solitary, independent and free standing structures but as component parts that may create a whole that is greater than their sum. Incorrectly assembling them just results in a pile of stones. Identifying the one stone of the six that is most important and insuring it is given the most attention in installation may result in the others being properly installed. A National Right to Carry Law may be similar to the keystone of a masonry arch in that it turns a pile of stones into a strong supportive structure of our society. Enacting a National Right to Carry Law may result in the following events which may or may not be desirable:

Will before or soon after being enacted result in an effort for greater enforcement of existing gun laws and laws to be enacted that modify the existing Metal Health System to be more effective in identifying the dangerously mentally ill before they act.

Make the idea of soldiers at military posts and recruiting centers carrying weapons for personal protection nothing unusual since it is the norm in civilian life.

Demonstrate over time that increased carrying of firearms does not increase crime. Result in many non-gun people beginning to doubt the belief that laws restricting gun types and magazine capacities reduce crimes committed with guns and deaths from gun fire. Eventually create consistency in gun laws among the 50 states.

Acceptance of a National Universal Background Check Law in order for the National Right to Carry law to be enacted.


In my opinion the enacting of a National Right to Carry Law is the single most important priority and that all others are a distant second. To get it we may have to be prepared to accept a National Universal Background Check Law that makes political sense even if it is inconvenient, expensive, and the least effective method of reducing crimes committed with guns.

 

[BSA1]

In my opinion the enacting of a National Right to Carry Law is the single most important priority and that all others are a distant second. To get it we may have to be prepared to accept a National Universal Background Check Law that makes political sense even if it is inconvenient, expensive, and the least effective method of reducing crimes committed with guns.

National Right to Carry Law is the single most important priority. Maybe for you but not for me.

With all of victories gun owners are winning on the State and Local level why should we agree to surrender some of those rights that have been won back through hard fought battles?

I wonder how many football coaches are telling their teams that they have to lose a football game to get to the Super Bowl?

Acceptance of a National Universal Background Check Law in order for the National Right to Carry law to be enacted.

Your premise is anyone wanting to purchase a gun must have the permission of Big Daddy before being able to so or to put it in another way you want to live in nanny country. If Big Daddy says no on the background check then you are ok with not legally owning a gun.

 

[BSA1]

3) Fix our broken mental health system. (People going off the deep end have been the reason for the recent shootings. Not weak laws. Not 'not enforcing laws'. Not because a felon go through the current BGC system) ETA #3 and #4 are tied together so that, for ex., some of the recent shootings that could have been prevented if the mental health records had been reported into the BGC system. I'm not advocating the expansion of back ground checks to include UBC's etc.

I don't agree with Trump on tying mental health services with gun ownership.

What makes folks think our mental health system is broken? Is this based on independent research of facts or based on the non-stop propaganda campaign by the liberal media and politicians?

The fact that someone that may have a mental illness refusing to seek treatment and counseling is far different than saying the person could not receive adequate mental services (i.e. broken).

Remember the old saying that you can lead a horse to water but you can not make him drink? Compulsory mental health treatment does not work. In fact all of the this media attention is likely having the effect of driving people from seeking treatment. There are frequent comments about losing the right to own gun(s) because their medical records may be released to the Federal Government. In addition there is a huge social stigma attached to seeking and receiving mental health treatment.

 

[barnbwt]

"Snap, knee jerk decision to make aproposal and sound bite filled photo-ops maybe. Snap decisions on policy being a problem...? You'll need to provide some examples of those"

"Acceptance of a National Universal Background Check Law in order for the National Right to Carry law to be enacted."

Nom, we're gonna have a SCOTUS case resolving the issue before the decade is out, and likely reciprocity (not permitting) will end up becoming the law of the land. It's been a solid decade of near-constant if not accelerating gains on carry law nationwide. All 50 states must have provisions for it at this point. It is not far-fetched for minimal standards governing carry to be handed down by courts before long, even as gun-issue adverse as they are at the moment. There are simply too many conflicting legal fronts converging to ignore forever (doing so risks a schism)

Since inevitability seems assured at the moment, the only reason to run it to ground with legislation would be to take credit for it or subvert it. I find it interesting someone from Arizona is so eager to impose nationally a system that is almost certain to be more burdensome for Arizonans (since they are basically the freest state on gun issues at this time). Another question; how exactly would a national policy on carry or background checks be protected from the influence of populous anti-gun states? Once the 'battle is won' a lot of the pro-gun support will become distracted, but Californian and NY/NJ senators & reps will still be controlling the committees regulating the rules & bureaus at least some of the time going forward. Like all gun control legislation, it will creep and crawl and become more restrictive, just like the NFA/GCA/FOPA/import restrictions. We regret those compromises' ultimate ramifications, so why on Earth would we add to the pile?

I'd rather see congress start removing its and the presidents' fingers from our many pies before they start sticking them in new ones, for once.

"What makes folks think our mental health system is broken? Is this based on independent research of facts or based on the non-stop propaganda campaign by the liberal media and politicians?"
I would think the fact that the issue is near-universally called "broken mental health system" --those four exact words-- every time it comes up should make it clear enough. It's not just the groups you mention doing the propagandizing, various gun groups seeking to deflect misplaced blame are doing a good chunk of it as well. Half the time it's just tossed out there without any further explanation (like, what's actually broken, let alone how whatever being pitched would fix it)

TCB

 

[basicblur]

What makes folks think our mental health system is broken?

Anyone unfortunate enough to have someone in the system can no doubt regale you with endless stories of how the mental health system is broken, or darn near non-existent.

I can just about guarantee you Adam Lanza's mother was seeking help with him, and he was a minor. Once he's 18 or 21, it becomes even more difficult to deal with the system.

For what reason I can't say (probably as simple as budgetary reasons), the mental health folks have been given their marching orders that everybody gets dumped back on the street.

I've seen dueling psychiatrists, judges slapping the mental health workers across the wrist (numerous times), and judges checking state laws / statutes in an effort to try and go around the mental health workers to admit an obviously impaired person.

Remember...when you hear the news media talk about "cracks" in the system...they're not cracks.
They are huge, gaping, Grand Canyon sized fissures in the system.

 

[Nom de Forum]

National Right to Carry Law is the single most important priority. Maybe for you but not for me.

What is the single most important priority for you?

With all of victories gun owners are winning on the State and Local level why should we agree to surrender some of those rights that have been won back through hard fought battles?

If you re-read my post you may possibly notice I never used your word "should". I wrote we may have to accept or may have to be prepared to accept a National Universal Background Check to get a National Right to Carry Law.

I wonder how many football coaches are telling their teams that they have to lose a football game to get to the Super Bowl?

Politics is not a winner take all game like Football? You play to win the most things because it is impossible to win everything. It is very rare in the game of politics that in order to win the most there is to be won you don't have to concede the least important battles in order to win the most important battles. It is wise to plan ahead so you can know what are the battles most desirable to win, those most likely to be won and lost, and which will be the least costly and possibly recoverable after loss. Unlike the Superbowl the game of politics never ends in total victory for one competitor and should never be played as though it does.

Your premise is anyone wanting to purchase a gun must have the permission of Big Daddy before being able to so or to put it in another way you want to live in nanny country. If Big Daddy says no on the background check then you are ok with not legally owning a gun.

Poppycock! I make no "premise", indicate I want to live in a "nanny country" or that I am "ok with not legally owning a gun" "If Big Daddy says no". I made an evaluation of what I think may be a political possibility not a statement of complete political desirability.

 

[Nom de Forum]

"Acceptance of a National Universal Background Check Law in order for the National Right to Carry law to be enacted."

Nom, we're gonna have a SCOTUS case resolving the issue before the decade is out, and likely reciprocity (not permitting) will end up becoming the law of the land. It's been a solid decade of near-constant if not accelerating gains on carry law nationwide. All 50 states must have provisions for it at this point. It is not far-fetched for minimal standards governing carry to be handed down by courts before long, even as gun-issue adverse as they are at the moment. There are simply too many conflicting legal fronts converging to ignore forever (doing so risks a schism).

Really? Considering the ages of the conservative members of the Court, that Obama has another year, and the very good chance that a Democrat will be elected in the next election, I think you are a bit optimistic in your prediction.

I find it interesting someone from Arizona is so eager to impose nationally a system that is almost certain to be more burdensome for Arizonans (since they are basically the freest state on gun issues at this time).

Please point to where I have posted I am "so eager to impose nationally a system that is almost certain to be more burdensome for Arizonans".

Another question; how exactly would a national policy on carry or background checks be protected from the influence of populous anti-gun states? Once the 'battle is won' a lot of the pro-gun support will become distracted, but Californian and NY/NJ senators & reps will still be controlling the committees regulating the rules & bureaus at least some of the time going forward. Like all gun control legislation, it will creep and crawl and become more restrictive, just like the NFA/GCA/FOPA/import restrictions. We regret those compromises' ultimate ramifications, so why on Earth would we add to the pile?

Nothing like a National Right to Carry Law has ever occurred. I have already posted what I think may be the desirable effects of it that are not specific to the law. The law could create irresistible momentum toward more freedoms.

I'd rather see congress start removing its and the presidents' fingers from our many pies before they start sticking them in new ones, for once.

Sure, but when has that ever happened with any issue? A new National Right to Carry Law could make some of the pies eventually disappear. Fewer pies mean less intrusion of unwanted fingers.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Anyone unfortunate enough to have someone in the system can no doubt regale you with endless stories of how the mental health system is broken, or darn near non-existent.

I can just about guarantee you Adam Lanza's mother was seeking help with him, and he was a minor. Once he's 18 or 21, it becomes even more difficult to deal with the system.

For what reason I can't say (probably as simple as budgetary reasons), the mental health folks have been given their marching orders that everybody gets dumped back on the street.

I've seen dueling psychiatrists, judges slapping the mental health workers across the wrist (numerous times), and judges checking state laws / statutes in an effort to try and go around the mental health workers to admit an obviously impaired person.

Remember...when you hear the news media talk about "cracks" in the system...they're not cracks.
They are huge, gaping, Grand Canyon sized fissures in the system.

In my opinion anyone who believes that the Mental Health Care system is not seriously inadequate is either grossly uninformed or denying it is inadequate because they do not want tax dollars spent on it.

 

[barnbwt]

"The law could create irresistible momentum toward more freedoms"
Ironic phrase of the week, everyone. Not only that, but you think congress passing yet another law in a new area will cause them to reduce or remove their influence and power, after claiming they cannot repeal abusive laws.

The only laws that ever sparked freedom were the Intolerable Acts.

TCB

 

[LiveLife]

I have noticed some posts have been deleted. While I appreciate some of the posts but as Sam1911 posted, I think some are drifting away.

I think many posted good points but as Sam1911 politely reminded us, we need to keep the discussion specific to 2A/RKBA or this thread like so many others will be closed.

Guys, we don't discuss general politics here. If you want to talk about candidates' gun control positions, that's fine and wonderful. If you want to get into all the other stuff they might claim to be for or against, take it SOMEWHERE ELSE. Deepest thanks.

It is extremely hard to paint a bright line on these things. If the thread is open, assume we're comfortable with where it's at. If we feel it's crossing over into too much social issue dreck, we'll let folks know that and prune as necessary.

If that becomes too strong a trend, we'll hang the "closed" sign on it.

As it is, this one's run longer than most, and aside from speculative theorizing about completely intangible matters of "trust" I'm not sure how much more good we can wring out of it, but carry on.

 

[jerkface11]

If you re-read my post you may possibly notice I never used your word "should". I wrote we may have to accept or may have to be prepared to accept a National Universal Background Check to get a National Right to Carry Law.

You suggest it in EVERY thread so the "should" is implied.

 

[BSA1]

Anyone unfortunate enough to have someone in the system can no doubt regale you with endless stories of how the mental health system is broken, or darn near non-existent.

Is your opinion based on actual research or influenced by the media propaganda and politicians?

I have worked with the mentally ill and mental health professionals for 30 years. I even have a piece of paper suitable for putting up on the wall attesting to my educational and professional qualifications. (I know. yada, yada, yada).

Mental illness and treatment is a difficult topic to discuss and even more difficult for many to understand. Nor should the media hype that a person commits a crime because of a mental disorder be believed.

Consider this for a moment. On the evening news the news chick is broadcasting live from a crime scene or the courthouse talking about the horrible crime that occurred. In her report she says the suspect was mentally ill and was bipolar. The news babe will then do a live interview bystander that claims to know the suspect well and the bystander will make a statement about how strange the suspects behavior was and that he was bipolar.

In subsequent news report it is reported that the suspect was bipolar and then there may be a some more news "investigations" about how the mental health system failed to give him proper treatment.

Of course there is never any actual investigation as to whether the suspect has a mental illness and if so what the disorder is, if he sought treatment, or if it even had anything to do with the crime. It's all about promoting the Big Lie.

So the source of this information is a bystander who may or may not know much about the suspect making a diagnosis during their 30 seconds of fame on live TV.

As I previously said what this talk about how broken the mental health system is doing is driving people away from seeking health. Go to work today and tell your coworkers you have a illness. It doesn't matter how small or large it is. Before the day is out you will get sympathy, support, advice and even what Doctor to see or hospital to get treatment from.

Tell the same group you have a mental illness and see what the reaction will be.

Certainly the availability of mental health services vary from State to State. However most health insurance will help pay for mental health treatment and medicine. Mental disorders are common in the United States and internationally. An estimated 22.1% of Americans ages 18 and older-about 1 in 5 adults-suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year.

Estimates for the number of Americans that have bipolar disorders range from 4 - 6% or over eight million people. Bipolar is a illness that can be difficult to diagnose and is not well understood. So do we strip those Americans of their right to own firearms simply because of a mental diagnosis?

Let's be careful about believing the Big Lie. Once we accept the idea that people with certain types of mental illnesses should not be allowed to own a gun before they commit a criminal act then it is only a series of small steps to expand the list to include more types of mental illness and disarming more and more Americans.

ALL Politicians are doing a huge disfavor by constantly linking crimes to having a mental illness.

 

[Sam1911]

ALL Politicians are doing a huge disfavor by constantly linking crimes to having a mental illness.

Oh, but mental illness is a lot scarier than video games, so very helpful in drumming up customers for the law-making business.

 

[Nom de Forum]

"The law could create irresistible momentum toward more freedoms"
Ironic phrase of the week, everyone. Not only that, but you think congress passing yet another law in a new area will cause them to reduce or remove their influence and power, after claiming they cannot repeal abusive laws.

The only laws that ever sparked freedom were the Intolerable Acts.

TCB

That is quite a melodramatic reach referencing the Intolerable Acts. Perhaps you have forgotten past examples of how passage of laws can lead to the end of other laws and create momentum toward more freedoms. Take a look at the evolution of Civil Rights laws, the near extinction of "Blue" laws, and more currently the medical and decriminalization of marijuana laws that are leading to legalization. That should end any confusion you are suffering.

A National Right to Carry Law is the single greatest step that can be taken toward greater freedom for usage of firearms.

 

[Nom de Forum]

You suggest it in EVERY thread so the "should" is implied.

You are in error. My impression is you think the mere mention of a National Universal Background Check is an endorsement. I still think it is an inevitability, not a desirability, that could be used as a political bargaining chip in a manner that makes it the least onerous it can be and increases other freedoms for firearms usage.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Is your opinion based on actual research or influenced by the media propaganda and politicians?

I have worked with the mentally ill and mental health professionals for 30 years. I even have a piece of paper suitable for putting up on the wall attesting to my educational and professional qualifications. (I know. yada, yada, yada).

Mental illness and treatment is a difficult topic to discuss and even more difficult for many to understand. Nor should the media hype that a person commits a crime because of a mental disorder be believed.

Consider this for a moment. On the evening news the news chick is broadcasting live from a crime scene or the courthouse talking about the horrible crime that occurred. In her report she says the suspect was mentally ill and was bipolar. The news babe will then do a live interview bystander that claims to know the suspect well and the bystander will make a statement about how strange the suspects behavior was and that he was bipolar.

In subsequent news report it is reported that the suspect was bipolar and then there may be a some more news "investigations" about how the mental health system failed to give him proper treatment.

Of course there is never any actual investigation as to whether the suspect has a mental illness and if so what the disorder is, if he sought treatment, or if it even had anything to do with the crime. It's all about promoting the Big Lie.

So the source of this information is a bystander who may or may not know much about the suspect making a diagnosis during their 30 seconds of fame on live TV.

As I previously said what this talk about how broken the mental health system is doing is driving people away from seeking health. Go to work today and tell your coworkers you have a illness. It doesn't matter how small or large it is. Before the day is out you will get sympathy, support, advice and even what Doctor to see or hospital to get treatment from.

Tell the same group you have a mental illness and see what the reaction will be.

Certainly the availability of mental health services vary from State to State. However most health insurance will help pay for mental health treatment and medicine. Mental disorders are common in the United States and internationally. An estimated 22.1% of Americans ages 18 and older-about 1 in 5 adults-suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year.

Estimates for the number of Americans that have bipolar disorders range from 4 - 6% or over eight million people. Bipolar is a illness that can be difficult to diagnose and is not well understood. So do we strip those Americans of their right to own firearms simply because of a mental diagnosis?

Let's be careful about believing the Big Lie. Once we accept the idea that people with certain types of mental illnesses should not be allowed to own a gun before they commit a criminal act then it is only a series of small steps to expand the list to include more types of mental illness and disarming more and more Americans.

ALL Politicians are doing a huge disfavor by constantly linking crimes to having a mental illness.

At the very least in the context of this thread the Mental Health System does need improvement. Most mentally ill people are not and will never become dangerous even if they can gain access to a firearm. Mental health professionals will readily admit this. Fear of expansion of denial of firearms access due to increasing diagnosis of mental illness is not realistic. It is the very small minority of people that will be dangerous that Mental Health System needs to have improvement in its detection and prevention.

I still believe the Mental Health System is inadequate in many ways but that is not something to be discussed in this thread. My opinion is based on: work during college as an orderly in a mental health hospital, listening to the experience of a parent who retired after 30+ years as a mental health professional, the experience of having a family member treated for a mental illness for his entire adult life, and decades of following developments in the study of mental health in specialized publications.

 

[jerkface11]

You are in error. My impression is you think the mere mention of a National Universal Background Check is an endorsement. I still think it is an inevitability, not a desirability, that could be used as a political bargaining chip in a manner that makes it the least onerous it can be and increases other freedoms for firearms usage.
__________________

Yeah I'm constantly suggesting things I don't agree with.....

 

[Nom de Forum]

Yeah I'm constantly suggesting things I don't agree with.....

I disagree. I think you are constantly suggesting things that you only imagine. Why you are doing this I do not know. I hope it is not because you think an untruth repeated enough times will believed to be true.

 

[basicblur]

Is your opinion based on actual research or influenced by the media propaganda and politicians?

Since it's based on personal experience and a constant fight with "the system", I guess you could call it "research".

The below line (from my earlier post) is actual experience - not something I just made up.

I've seen dueling psychiatrists, judges slapping the mental health workers across the wrist (numerous times), and judges checking state laws / statutes in an effort to try and go around the mental health workers to admit an obviously impaired person.

While sitting in on a court hearing, I've seen the judge get so POed at the mental health workers that she finally ordered them to present an independent 3rd party at the next evaluation. When said 3rd party evaluates the person, they recommend (and are astounded) that the person has not been admitted, and when he presents his findings to the judge, suddenly the health worker agrees.

Had the judge not ordered the independent 3rd party evaluation, the mental health worker would have said they do not meet criteria for being admitted, (as they have done numerous times in the past) when everyone in the room (and is stated by the judge) knows and can see that the person is obviously seriously impaired.

I just have to wonder how many of those that have made the headlines recently were in a similar position?

 

[danez71]

Is your opinion based on actual research or influenced by the media propaganda and politicians?

I have worked with the mentally ill and mental health professionals for 30 years. I even have a piece of paper suitable for putting up on the wall attesting to my educational and professional qualifications. (I know. yada, yada, yada).

Personally, I base most of my opinion on this from my uncle who has nearly 50 yrs experience including being/have been:

• Medical Director of the Psychiatry Unit at xxxx
• Medical Director of the Psychiatry Program at xxxx
• Chairman of Psychiatry at xxxx
• Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at University of xxxx School of Medicine
• Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association and a Diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology.

While he wouldn't say its completely "broken", I'm pretty confident he would say its severely lacking in certain areas.


But this is really all off topic as whether or not its broken isn't gun related.

How it effects peoples gun rights IS on topic.


So... back on topic......

[

<snip>


So do we strip those Americans of their right to own firearms simply because of a mental diagnosis?

<snip>
.

I don't recall anyone saying that. I certainly didn't.

In fact, I defended the person that may have been on a 72 hr lock-up due to his actions/behavior as a result of suffering devastating personal losses by saying that just because that happened doesn't mean he isn't fine once he wraps his mind around it.


What I was referencing is when there was failure to report into the system the results (incarcerations, restraining orders for violent actions) of person actions.


I have 1 employee that is bi-polar and is under treatment. While the person has some better days, and some not so good, her behaviors/actions are not violent. My guess is that she could get a gun somehow but because of her actions/behavior, I don't feel threatened.

 

[BSA1]

A National Right to Carry Law is the single greatest step that can be taken toward greater freedom for usage of firearms.

For whom?

I have the right to open and conceal carry without a license.
I have the right to transport a loaded or unloaded firearm openly or concealed in my motor vehicle.
I have the right to carry in businesses that are not posted.
I have the right to carry in government offices that do not have security posted at the entrances of the building.
Ignoring posted no guns allowed signage is a civil offense.
The law is very specific about the type of legal signage and where and how it must be posted. No signs hidden behind a scrub or written on a piece of cardboard.
There are no restrictions on ammunition
There are no restrictions on magazine capacity.
No waiting period for firearms purchases.
No background check for private purchases.
NFA approved firearms are legal.
The State of Kansas will recognize all “valid” concealed carry licenses (or permits, cards, etc.) that are issued by another State or the District of Columbia.
I have the right to carry in over 30 States.

I am a free person and have the freedom to choose where I live and travel.

Kansans fought a long hard battle to change our anti-gun laws from a couple of decades ago.

I am not sympathetic to gun owners in restrictive states like Caiifornia but tell me why Kansans should surrender any of these hard one rights and victories because of them?

I will repeat again that I do not want to live in a nanny state where I have to have Big Daddy's permission before making a gun purchases or to carry a firearm.

 

[BSA1]

While he wouldn't say its completely "broken", I'm pretty confident he would say its severely lacking in certain areas.

That is a fair statement.

Just like my family Doctor not checking my medical history and giving me medicine that interacted with other medicine I was taking almost killed me three years ago. The E.R. Doctor said if I had waited another day I would have died.

My point is the media is painting all gun owners with mental illness as a threat to others and politicians are promoting the Big Lie.

 

[Nom de Forum]

For whom?

For all the Americans who do not enjoy the freedoms you posted below in their states and when traveling to some other states.

I have the right to open and conceal carry without a license.
I have the right to transport a loaded or unloaded firearm openly or concealed in my motor vehicle.
I have the right to carry in businesses that are not posted.
I have the right to carry in government offices that do not have security posted at the entrances of the building.
Ignoring posted no guns allowed signage is a civil offense.
The law is very specific about the type of legal signage and where and how it must be posted. No signs hidden behind a scrub or written on a piece of cardboard.
There are no restrictions on ammunition
There are no restrictions on magazine capacity.
No waiting period for firearms purchases.
No background check for private purchases.
NFA approved firearms are legal.
The State of Kansas will recognize all “valid” concealed carry licenses (or permits, cards, etc.) that are issued by another State or the District of Columbia.
I have the right to carry in over 30 States.

I am a free person and have the freedom to choose where I live and travel.

But you do not enjoy as an American those rights if you travel to all the other states you have a right to travel to.

Kansans fought a long hard battle to change our anti-gun laws from a couple of decades ago.

I am not sympathetic to gun owners in restrictive states like Caiifornia but tell me why Kansans should surrender any of these hard one rights and victories because of them?

A National Right to Carry Law does not require you to surrender all those rights. I understand your not wanting a National Universal Background Check that does require surrender of the right to buy or sell a firearm without a background check being performed. A National UBC would be more inconvenient than effective, and an expense that its ineffectiveness could not objectively justify.

I will repeat again that I do not want to live in a nanny state where I have to have Big Daddy's permission before making a gun purchases or to carry a firearm.

Completely understood.

 

[Nom de Forum]

My point is the media is painting all gun owners with mental illness as a threat to others and politicians are promoting the Big Lie.

That statement is more accurate than inaccurate.