Should veterans with PTSD be disarmed?

[guartz]

yea, sure. But this bill is all sorts of weird.

NICS Improvement Amendments Act or H.R 2640, passed the house already.

Clinton did the same thing, awhile back. With NICS system, by added anybody diagnosed with PTSD to the gunban list. I think it was like 80k veterans. How this legislation is different? Well, with this legislation all that needs to happen is for your psychiatrist to say that your a danger to yourself or others... this means that medical data is now introduced into the system. And once you are banned, you are banned forever. NO EXPUNGEMENTS.

My problems with this;

it's redefining a lot of legal terms, (mental defective, adjudicate)
nowhere now is this only for vets.
there are no expungements...
and I don't think 2nd amendment should be stripped because of a diagnosis without trial.


I'm no lawyer, anybody with law experience wanna look into this crap?

[skurlover]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you aren't even from America right?

[guartz]

I wasn't born in America...

I live in South Florida. Why?

[skurlover]

I wasn't born in America...

I live in South Florida. Why?

Just curious, you make a lot of topics (or at least response to them) with a tone of a non-American looking in.

[guartz]

Off-topic, but

I take that as an insult, actually.

I'm very patriotic.

[skurlover]

Off-topic, but

I take that as an insult, actually.

I'm very patriotic.

Nah, not trying to insult you at all. Was more curious than anything, you bring up a lot of more in-depth topics that aren't hot button issues that generally get discussed on here.

[Shuemue]

From an outside standpoint, it's common sense to prevent those with mental health issues from having access to a gun.

[guartz]

Nah, not trying to insult you at all. Was more curious than anything, you bring up a lot of more in-depth topics that aren't hot button issues that generally get discussed on here.

I like this stuff, and I don't have friends who will discuss these things with me. :D

Internet fills the gap.

[guartz]

From an outside standpoint, it's common sense to prevent those with mental health issues from having access to a gun.

I agree with you 100%...and we already have legislation like that.

What this does is make it so that if you were diagnosed with ADD at age 15, your banned from guns forever.

[Shuemue]

I think that sounds a shade extreme.

[guartz]

that's what I'm thinking... maybe I read it wrong.

I was kinda hoping somebody who knows law could take a look into this

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex ... =h110-2640

[BIGSTIC]

that's what I'm thinking... maybe I read it wrong.

I was kinda hoping somebody who knows law could take a look into this

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex ... =h110-2640

Sorry. Read the bill and it made me remember why i am an engineer and not a lawyer

But yeah this seems extreme. And this bill also tossed in misdemeanor assault charges for being denied gun privileges. I thought the government was a little extreme when i found out my friend who got his 6th DUI and spent a year in the pen found out he cant Hunt anymore cause he has a felony on his record. The guy had a drinking problem and has been sober for 4 years now but he still cant own or even be around a gun. Yet get this the sheriff's deputy in a neighboring county of mine has a felony assault with a deadly weapon on his record and yet he gets to carry a gun all day long. I'm sorry but every now and then shit just don't make sense.

[sephir]

First thing they wil ever say in any rehabilitation clinic is that you have a prolem and that you will suffer from this problem for the rest of your life. Alcoholics can go dry for 20+ years, but if they touch a drop after that they can relapse. Honestly I think this is a good piece of legislation as it prevents people that have mental health issue from harming themselves or harming others. Guns in households are something I personally dont believe in, however if they are used properly and safely for the right purposes there is little problems.

I was researching this article a few weeks back for my poly sci class about the US ban on assault rifles and anti-bullet proof vest bullets (I know im not american, but we cover different topics from different governments) and I was amazed at the shear anger that some of the articles were coming at Clinton for. Why do you need an assault rifle and anti-bullet proof vest bullets to hunt deer? I thought it was disgusting that companies even mass produced them into the market.

[Tulun]

I was researching this article a few weeks back for my poly sci class about the US ban on assault rifles and anti-bullet proof vest bullets (I know im not american, but we cover different topics from different governments) and I was amazed at the shear anger that some of the articles were coming at Clinton for. Why do you need an assault rifle and anti-bullet proof vest bullets to hunt deer? I thought it was disgusting that companies even mass produced them into the market.

I don't know what kind of deer you hunt, but the deer I hunt up here in Alberta are growing increasingly armed. How else will I penetrate their bullet proof vests of hide if not with those bullets?

Them deers are a fussin'.

[Jotaru]

Why do you need an assault rifle and anti-bullet proof vest bullets to hunt deer? I thought it was disgusting that companies even mass produced them into the market.

You don't, its more for the nutheads who think they need to load up a closet full of guns (because they can carry more than one rifle at a time, amirite?) so they can defend against terrorism when it makes its last stop at their place.

Of course, I'm all for the right to bear arms, but yeah, stuff like that is a bit extreme, in my opinion at least. To those people, many just simply see it as, we're allowed to bear arms, why limit what we can use? The bigger the better, if some dude toting a rocket launcher and body armor invades my house someday my right to bear will be useless without armor penetrating bullets. /shrug. Its opinion.

As far as this new legislation goes, its one of those 'good in theory, bad in practice' type things. Yeah, we don't want some special ed Donnie gettin a bazooka and goin to school, or work, or whatnot... on the other hand, it basically tells anyone 'diagnose this guy with some problem and he can't own guns'. It opens the door so to speak for anyone to limit people as they choose; it gives them a conveniently placed loophole.

[Elesirdur]

From an outside standpoint, it's common sense to prevent everyone* from having access to a gun.

Fixed.

* With some minor exceptions for farmers and people living in rural communities. If you live in a city you don't need a fucking gun. Be a man and use a knife or your bare hands.

[Skyylya]

I think this is a good law. The 2nd amendment was created in an era when everyone having a gun in their house was almost necessary just to survive. It's hardly the case now and i'm glad that we're moving in a direction that limits who can and can not have guns.

Mentally unstable people, of whatever diagnosis, have no business being able to carry guns.

[guartz]

Whats difficult to understand?

We live in a constitutional republic.
We have a constitution that is the supreme law of the land.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."



If this was a democracy were we choose our laws, black people would still be picking cotton and
going to separate bathrooms. Women wouldn't vote, and you'd be required to go to church.

[guartz]

lol

it's saying that armed citizens are the best militia to defend the state... therefore the right for citizens to keep arms shall not be infringed.


but thanks for the lesson.

[guartz]

land invasion isn't the only threat US faces.

I agree with this guy:

"As illustrated in the first section, the amendment does appear to have been designed to protect the militias, and it was also designed to protect an individual's right to own and bear a gun. The question, then, is do we have to adhere to both tenets of the amendment today? If we decide to do away with the individual ownership aspect of the Amendment, reinterpreting the amendment to allow highly restricted gun ownership, we seem to open the door to radical reinterpretation of other, more basic parts of the Constitution. If we decide to do nothing, and allow unrestricted gun ownership, we run the risk of creating a society of the gun, a risk that seems too great to take. So the real question seems to be, can we have the a constitutional freedom to bear arms, and still allow restriction and regulation?

Reasonable restrictions do seem to be the way to go, acknowledging the Amendment, but molding it, as we've done with much of the Constitution. After all, we have freedom of speech in the United States, but you are not truly free to say whatever you wish. You cannot incite violence without consequence; you cannot libel someone without consequence; you cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater without consequence. Why cannot gun ownership by similarly regulated without violating the Constitution? Of course, prosecution for speech violations only take place after the fact, and regulation of gun ownership is necessarily different — it is a "prior restraint," a condition rarely allowed in speech restrictions, but necessary in gun restrictions.

The trick is finding that balance between freedom and reasonable regulation, between unreasonable unfettered ownership and unreasonable prior restraint. Gun ownership is indeed a right — but it is also a grand responsibility. With responsibility comes the interests of society to ensure that guns are used safely and are used by those with proper training and licensing. If we can agree on this simple premise, it should not be too difficult to work out the details and find a proper compromise."