2017/2018 Gun Control debate

thomfantomas · Oct 4, 2017

Since the anti gun elites and crowd have reignited the good ole gun control debate flame,id figured it would be more appropriate to discuss here in this thread post las vegas massacre.i personally believe That our POTUS/Trump will be 100% on our side!

thomfantomas · Oct 4, 2017

Antigun democrat makes a fool of himself starts @20:33

Deeper background checks,close the loop hole sales at gun shows and ban the slide/bump stock!

doggyjacket · Oct 4, 2017

The simple truth is that there cannot be a debate. The left won't be happy until all guns are banned. That's all they care about. We can't give a single bleeping inch b/c it's a slippery slope and always is with "progressives."

thomfantomas · Oct 4, 2017

doggyjacket said:
The simple truth is that there cannot be a debate. The left won't be happy until all guns are banned. That's all they care about. We can't give a single bleeping inch b/c it's a slippery slope and always is with "progressives."

But it must be defended at all cost! No one cant be neutral

thomfantomas · Oct 4, 2017

So with Trumps landing in las vegas politica will be put aside on his trip,we shall see.

teratos · Oct 4, 2017

Seems like the country doesn't have the stomach for more gun control. We'll see. The fly in the ointment is the bumpfire stock. Even people who are moderately pro-2A don't see a need for that. I think those are going bye-bye. I don't know that anything else will get accomplished. Not on a national level, anyway.

Cruacious · Oct 4, 2017

I'll throw this subject in as it's the only reasonable middle ground I see. Remove HIPPA protections from mental health history and attach them to the NICS system and create a list of disqualifying mental conditions to prevent people who are not sane from acquiring firearms. That's about as far as I am willing to go currently on

Now, for more a more contentious discussion, how about we discuss whether or not we remove the in-person transfer of long guns without a background check being required (much less an FFL)?

(Note: If someone has a valid C&R license a background check will still not be required.)

EL1227 · Oct 4, 2017

Cruacious said:
I'll throw this subject in as it's the only reasonable middle ground I see. Remove HIPPA protections from mental health history and attach them to the NICS system and create a list of disqualifying mental conditions to prevent people who are not sane from acquiring firearms. That's about as far as I am willing to go currently on

Now, for more a more contentious discussion, how about we discuss whether or not we remove the in-person transfer of long guns without a background check being required (much less an FFL)?

(Note: If someone has a valid C&R license a background check will still not be required.)

Katie bar the door ... Opening up HIPPA Pandora's box is the wrong thing to do, even with 'common sense' guidelines on what could be viewed.

No compromise !!!

Rack&Roll · Oct 4, 2017

Bump fire stocks ain't going anywhere. I will eat the ATF letter below if they do.

AssMan · Oct 4, 2017

Cruacious said:
I'll throw this subject in as it's the only reasonable middle ground I see. Remove HIPPA protections from mental health history and attach them to the NICS system and create a list of disqualifying mental conditions to prevent people who are not sane from acquiring firearms.

And then the next Democratic president will add insomnia, claustrophobia and every other minor disorder to the list of "disqualifying" mental disorders via executive order. No thanks.

teratos · Oct 4, 2017

Cruacious said:
I'll throw this subject in as it's the only reasonable middle ground I see. Remove HIPPA protections from mental health history and attach them to the NICS system and create a list of disqualifying mental conditions to prevent people who are not sane from acquiring firearms. That's about as far as I am willing to go currently on

Now, for more a more contentious discussion, how about we discuss whether or not we remove the in-person transfer of long guns without a background check being required (much less an FFL)?

(Note: If someone has a valid C&R license a background check will still not be required.)

Not only no, but HELL NO. This will ensure that people just won't go get treatment for their mental illnesses. How will that go? Who determines what condition is disqualifying? Who will have access to those records?

You know that people who meet certain criteria are reportable to NICS? NICS reporting is inconsistent at best. Tighten this up, and it will work better. Better yet, increase reimbursements for psychiatrists so more will take insurance and more people will go into the field. You can't treat or put people on "the lists" unless you have someone to diagnose and treat them.

Persons diagnosed with mental illness are no more likely to commit violent crimes than the general population. They are MUCH more likely to be victims. The vast majority are perfectly capable of owning and defending themselves with firearms and should be afforded the exercise of that Right. Also, if a Right can be restricted, there MUST be a path to the reinstatement of that Right. Such a thing generally does not exist.

What happens when the government deems conservatism a mental illness. This is too powerful an instrument to trust government with.

CrazySanMan · Oct 4, 2017

teratos said:
Not only no, but HELL NO. This will ensure that people just won't go get treatment for their mental illnesses. How will that go? Who determines what condition is disqualifying? Who will have access to those records?

You know that people who meet certain criteria are reportable to NICS? NICS reporting is inconsistent at best. Tighten this up, and it will work better. Better yet, increase reimbursements for psychiatrists so more will take insurance and more people will go into the field. You can't treat or put people on "the lists" unless you have someone to diagnose and treat them.

Persons diagnosed with mental illness are no more likely to commit violent crimes than the general population. They are MUCH more likely to be victims. The vast majority are perfectly capable of owning and defending themselves with firearms and should be afforded the exercise of that Right. Also, if a Right can be restricted, there MUST be a path to the reinstatement of that Right. Such a thing generally does not exist.

What happens when the government deems conservatism a mental illness. This is too powerful an instrument to trust government with.

Yeah, the correct way to prevent gun deaths where these drugs were a factor is to create provide mental health treatment in the country. Make treatment more accessible and remove the social stigmas associated with it. Treat the people BEFORE they get to the end of their ropes.

teratos · Oct 4, 2017

CrazySanMan said:
Yeah, the correct way to prevent gun deaths where these drugs were a factor is to create provide mental health treatment in the country. Make treatment more accessible and remove the social stigmas associated with it. Treat the people BEFORE they get to the end of their ropes.

Yep. Putting people on lists only increases the stigma.

thomfantomas · Oct 4, 2017

Ran across this lieutenants page via fb https://www.lttimmcmillan.com/singl...-See-A-Problem-With-Our-Gun-Laws-Ok-Read-This

Hellrazr78 · Oct 4, 2017

Here we go. Litigation to ban bump fire and "ROF enhancing accessories".

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pu...71B98A52.automatic-gunfire-prevention-act.pdf

teratos · Oct 4, 2017

Are 90% of people really in favor of background checks? I doubt it. I would have no problem with it if it were truly just used to weed out the criminals and .gov had no designs on using it as a registration scheme and actually respected the 2A.

thomfantomas · Oct 4, 2017

teratos said:
Are 90% of people really in favor of background checks? I doubt it. I would have no problem with it if it were truly just used to weed out the criminals and .gov had no designs on using it as a registration scheme and actually respected the 2A.

The co president of the brady campaign said 90% of the nation supports universal background check,Dan Bongino was on air with her

teratos · Oct 4, 2017

thomfantomas said:
The co president of the brady campaign said 90% of the nation supports universal background check,Dan Bongino was on air with her

That's what I was watching. Can that possibly be true?

thomfantomas · Oct 4, 2017

teratos said:
That's what I was watching. Can that possibly be true?

In her mind Yes

Sealion · Oct 4, 2017

teratos said:
That's what I was watching. Can that possibly be true?

Not a chance. 90% of people wouldn't agree that Hitler was evil.

2017/2018 Gun Control debate

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Crna Ovca

Crna Ovca

Ultimate Member

Crna Ovca

Crna Ovca

My hair is amazing

C&R Farmer

R.I.P.

R.I.P

Attachments

Meh...

My hair is amazing

2013'er

My hair is amazing

Crna Ovca

Active Member

My hair is amazing

Crna Ovca

My hair is amazing

Crna Ovca

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics