Oso planning to go pro
Common-sense, no-brainers?No gun sales to the mentally illNo gun sales to people on no-fly listsNo gun sales to people on terror watchlistsBackground checks for all guns, including private sales or gun showsBanning assault weaponsTracking individual sales so when someone suddenly buys 33 guns in a year it triggers some alerts
Yep, GM, like you, brew and others, I also provided a list. Smuggles and his ilk choose to ignore them, move the goalposts, pontificate, cite meaningless statistics - and offer nothing themselves.Smuggles then takes it one step further by continuing to go with the "maybe Paddock was working for ISIS" story line ... because it's a lot easier to accept that than the fact that a rich white guy just starting shooting people. Not sure why. The vast majority of terrorist acts in this country have been perpetrated by white male d-bags.As the columnist I mentioned in my earlier post said: If the shooter in Las Vegas had been named Mohammed, you can be sure that these same leaders would be offering a laundry list of “solutions” to keep more Mohammeds out of America.But OK ... let's play. What if Paddock WAS an ISIS "agent" or sympathizer? So? How does anything proposed by any of the right-wing extremists or con-man political opportunists (Trump fits in the latter category) keep the next American ISIS Dude from doing exactly what he did? Travel ban from Mesquite to Vegas? Build a wall around St. George, Utah?
Do you have the same problems with the no-fly list?
Except 45 just pulled back the restrictions on the mentally ill. People that do not have the capacity to manage their affairs because of a mental disorder. I'm sorry, but this one is damn personal to me. I have a friend who committed suicide using a gun she bought legally. She had a long history of suicide attempts, all documented by physicians. She had a history of being in psych wards, both voluntary and involuntary.
Without the gun, she never commits suicide? This is the flawed argument of guns and suicide. These folks desperate enough will find another way. Pills. Hanging. I, also have had to go through this with a family member. The gun is a tool, just as the pills are, or jumping off a bridge.Your 45 claim on mentally ill has some holes in it. The regulation that 44 put into place was opposed by American Association of People with Disabilities, the Arc of the United States, the Association of Mature American Citizens, the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Council on Disability, the National Disability Rights Network and the American Civil Liberties Union. Yes, that ACLU. That's why it was rescinded because it denied people their civil liberties.It lacked due process. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/reporters-resurrect-bogus-narrative-that-republicans-made-it-easier-for-the-mentally-ill-to-buy-guns/article/2636419
So every gun in private hands must in the hands of the one who purchased it... forever?
No pretty simple to allow them to be resold through licensed dealers, who have to follow all the background checks. Not that hard, doesn't violate anyones constitutional rights.
... and who owns the gun when the current owner dies? Does the spouse or children have to go through a background check upon their death? Or, isn't it illegal for you to die because that constitutes an illegal transfer of your guns?And, the day after you die, your wife (or kids) have to go through a background check. And if their name is the same name as someone on the no-fly list, or have mental illness or arrest in their background, they do not pass and the ATF arrests them at your funeral for being an illegal owner of guns. They cannot sell them after you die because they are not the registered owner.Regarding the mentally Ill definition ... It is not the definition, it is about due process. If someone is determined to be mentally ill, they need a way to contest this, via the courts. And, like any list the government keeps, it has to be public (no secret lists anymore). So what is to stop landlords and employees from using this list to deny leases and jobs. Do you want to go down this road?
The largest transfer of guns every year is the existing owner of a gun passes away and the gun(s) pass to their surviving spouse or children. You have made dying illegal as the survivors break the law because they participated in an illegal transfer of guns because they did not go through a licensed gun dealer.It is not an insignificant issue.
This is a dumb argument/statement. Pretty easy to allow the weapons to be transferred to family members in a will. Laws can be written in that manner. For mentally ill. Let them contest it in court. Or, let them get a second doctors opinion who can overrule the first. Again, easy to write that into the law.For landlords and employers, simple. The law already forbids discrimination in such cases. Make the lists public, but searches of the list documentable. That makes it easy to prove discrimination in a case where it was used to deny housing/jobs. A few massive lawsuits for discrimination and it won't be a problem. I have no problem going down this road. It is quite simple to put in provisions to protect individuals from misuse. None of these restrictions we discuss here are unconstitutional, none infringe on anyones legal rights, all can be drafted to protect against misuse. Should be common sense to implement.
This is a dumb argument/statement. Pretty easy to allow the weapons to be transferred to family members in a will. Laws can be written in that manner.
And as is the case most times these events occur, none of these proposed changes would have made a difference. The shooter had no mental illness. He bought guns legally. Yes, he had many guns but he could have carried out his whims with just a few if needed. When common sense and implementation ever occur in harmony with the United States government, let me know.
No I haven't. You are being dense. See above.
Is it possible to have discussions without the name calling anymore?
So you will allow transfers of guns without a background check. And this can number of a million transfers of guns a year.And if I can state in my will who gets it, what if I give them to someone who is mentally ill or has been arrested? Are they violating the law upon my death?What you have done is create an incredibly complex byzantine set of rules. I'm now starting to wonder if you are capable of seeing what you created.
But OK ... let's play. What if Paddock WAS an ISIS "agent" or sympathizer? So? How does anything proposed by any of the right-wing extremists or con-man political opportunists (Trump fits in the latter category) keep the next American ISIS Dude from doing exactly what he did? If this is the case, then we can have the correct conversation. It will be far more productive than this conversation ... the worst kind of hateful identity politics.because it's a lot easier to accept that than the fact that a rich white guy just starting shooting people. Not sure why. The vast majority of terrorist acts in this country have been perpetrated by white male d-bags.A guy owns five houses and makes $5 million a year ... please tell me why this profile means one should worry about this person wants to shoot 500 people?
Two things. 1) We do not have enough details to know if such laws would have impacted this incidence. But we do about numerous others and they would have had an impact. 2) We do know that he had a mental illness for which he was prescribed very high doses of Valium.
"... your hero called it a Muslim ban 100 times before..." i'll fix this for ya-it was not a "muslim ban". he didn't ban travel from, say, countries such as indonesia, turkey, india, nigeria, bangladesh...need i go on? so how could it be a muslim ban??
"That was in December 2015. He repeated his calls for a "total and complete" Muslim ban dozens and dozens and dozens (and likely hundreds and hundreds) of times during the campaign. It was one of his many ways of using hate speech and fearmongering to fire up his sheeple" seriously? you're better at sports...i think. stick with what ya know and leave the exaggerations to the professional fanatics-you know msnbc, cnn, abc, nbc, et.al. what trump says, when(2015?) he says it and what he actually does are 2 different things, eyn'er?you're zealous rhetoric diminishes the credibility of your statement-check out tamu's saying-you can leave out the "God" part if it helps