Thank You President Obama

[Uncle Al]

...You rotten S.O.B.

Removing 2nd Amendment Rights of Americans
Dis-arm the populace so the people can't fight back against a tyrannical Government



Uncle Al

[Darryl]

Maybe The Donald will go on a round of budget cuts....and remove Secret Service protections from former Presidents...and job creation cause they'll likely hire their own private security.

[Ralph]

Maybe I'm missing something you're seeing here, but it sounds like they're talking about keeping guns out of the hands of people who are mentally impaired. Is that really a bad thing?

Just to clarify with a little background, I'm big on asserting my 2nd Amendment rights. I own several guns and you can bet your sweet crinoline I won't hesitate to use them to defend myself or my family or my property as needed, and I encourage everyone to do the same. However, I also don't have a problem applying some common sense safety precautions. We don't let Joe Sixpack make or use atomic bombs. We don't let people publish damaging lies about others -- the First Amendment isn't without its restrictions as well.

Is there potential for a common sense restriction to be abused? Sure, there always is. Government can (and has at various times in the past) assert that such-and-such printed or spoken material endangers the public and therefore must be suppressed; in the same way any restriction at all that limits who can own what kind of weapons may be abused to take rights away from law-abiding citizens. So we should remain vigilant and speak out, fight against it the very first time that happens. But until they go from "take guns away from crazy people" to "take guns away from everyone", I don't worry that the sky is falling just yet.

[Disaffected.citizen]

Your post has hidden ambiguities, Uncle Al.

Are you decrying your encumbent president:

for placing restrictions on gun ownership?
placing restrictions on your personal gun ownership?
for preventing you taking action against a future tyrant president?
perhaps a realisation of the potential of the president elect to become a tyrant?
did the people make a mistake at the last election?

All of the above said with tongue firmly in cheek

I don't think the US of A needs worry too much about internal tyranny in the grand scheme of things.

[crfriend]

I didn't read the whole thing verbatim, simply by virtue of not having time, but on a quick scan indicates that it's a bolstering of the communication between the Social "Security" Administration with one (of many, likely secret) databases on criminal activity and the eligibility to possess firearms based on mental incapacity. It does not appear to be a wholesale assault on the Second Amendment -- although that it is likely coming at some point.

[oldsalt1]

Al the document was too long to read could you possibly sum up what it says. I don't trust any anti gun legislation. The people who support it usually have a hidden agenda. A few years back our state legislation was trying to propose a restriction on clip size . It seemed reasonable till you got to the bottom line they wanted to set the limit at 5 rounds gee that would automatically disallow all revolvers

I am in favor of reasonable back round checks and some restrictions on gun ownership and sales . But they have to be specific and limited. which will never happen

[dillon]

It seems to me a commonsense rule, but then I am not inclined to read conspiracy theories into every legal act of the various bureaucracies, unless there seems to be flagrant lobbying involved. Too, there seems to be a process of relief from the rules already included in the rules.

To reiterate, we will report
an individual’s record to the NICS based
on his or her inability to manage his or
her affairs due to a disabling mental
impairment that meets or equals the
criteria found in one of the Mental
Disorders Listings.

However, we will obtain a
criminal background check as part of
the relief process. The relief inquiry
focuses on whether the applicant will be
likely to act in a manner dangerous to
public safety, and whether the granting
of the relief would be contrary to the
public interest.

Someone would need to explain why it would be bad to prevent old people in probable states of dementia from obtaining firearms before I'd concur with the "fussin' and cussin'." Even if such weapons are not intended by the senile purchaser to harm others or harm himself, he may be in such a mental condition that he is unwittingly purchasing weapons for a child or grandchild or other "caretaker" who may be either a dangerous felon or supplying the weapon(s)to dangerous felons. This seems more a public health and public endangerment issue than a constitutional one, to me. Even the NRA has called for keeping guns away from the mentally unstable (although most observers doubt the sincerity of that call, if such actions might cost sales to their dealer members, which are the organization's principal constituents).

Regardless, a senile senior should not be armed; that seems self-evident. This is the view of the son of a law officer who was shot in the line of duty by an elderly man in the throes of dementia, who got hold of a shotgun belonging to his caretaker family and drove them from their own home, leaving police officers as the ones to manage the situation. My father led several young officers into the house, and only by the quickness of his instincts did he avoid being possibly killed when the old man fired on him. My Dad, though wounded, disarmed the old man before the young officers, all who had weapons drawn, could return fire. My Dad never drew his own service revolver. Experience and focus saved his life and the life of the assailant.

This was long before police were issued kevlar body armour, and luckily before this incessaantly-propagandized nation became awash with Glocks and Sigs and AR15s and other high capacity, high rate of fire weapons. Those are exactly the sorts of weapons for which a mentally vulnerable old person could be used to as a buyer, duped by someone with nefarious intentions who gains the old person's confidence, or upon whom the old person is dependent, or of whom the old person is simply terrified.

In my Dad's case, a simple trigger lock employed by the household's responsible adults would have prevented the entire episode, as it could also prevent many suicides and accidental shootings. In a perfect world, of course, responsibility would be valued above rhetoric. Too, I would imagine that an older person inclined to feel vulnerable without a weapon, probably already has one. My Dad, even into his nineties, kept a shotgun nearby, unloaded, but handy. As we began to observe his cognitive decline, of course we removed all the firearms from his access. I'd hate to think that someone's belief in rhetoric allowed an old man to kill himself or someone else, perhaps a great-grandchild climbing to his lap.

[Judah14]

Regarding restrictions, I suggest having mandatory background checks for anyone getting a license and requiring guns purchased by a license holder to be registered under their license, like as stated in Republic Act No. 10591 in the Philippines.

[oldsalt1]

I agree with what you say about keeping guns away from people who could cause harm to themselves or anybody else. I don't think that there are very many gun owners who don't agree. It is a very difficult area to control. It is a shame that when any gun legislation is proposed it can't hit the main problems but resorts to considering any an all gun owners as misfit militants.

I feel the same way about driving licenses. In my area were have had more instances of senile old people causing traffic accidents than shooting people.

[Ray]

Europe thinks you're all raving nutters, devoid of civilisation and sanity, given your paranoid angst over a misquoted amendment.

USA, thanks for listening!

[crfriend]

Europe thinks you're all raving nutters, devoid of civilisation and sanity, given your paranoid angst over a misquoted amendment.

Sadly, that sentiment is understandable given the amount of ink that gets spilt on the topic. However, it's not entirely correct. There are lots of us over here that are entirely rational beings who take pride in "sanity and civilisation".

Please don't paint us all into that box.

[oldsalt1]

Europe thinks you're all raving nutters, devoid of civilisation and sanity, given your paranoid angst over a misquoted amendment.

Ray is it at all possible for you to post a comment without resulting to insults and name calling

[Uncle Al]

Any one of the "examiners" on the Government Staff at S.S.A., may - and can - interpret
answers on questionnaires to be mentally unstable. Another 'hypothesis' is in the 'Medical'
questionnaires at a hospital. These may be considered weird questions but the 'Psychologists'
wrote the questions to seem non-committal yet are interpreted to mean a person is a hazard
to himself and the community. Double-Talk gobbledygook!

This is where people don't have, or use, common sense.(Something not taught in schools.)
You & I know that X = X and Y = Y, yet the Psychologist may understand 'Z' and common
sense goes out the window.(My younger son would say the person who wrote these
questions is operating one sandwich shy of a full picnic.)

Sorry, but ANY FORM of Governmental control operating in opposition to the 'Bill-Of-Rights',
is a pox on America! (Chicago's 'gun control' is a prime example of how NOT to do it.)

Uncle Al

[dillon]

I am a gun owner, and sportsman. But I am not one of the weak-minded paranoiacs that are easy fodder for NRA propagandists. I want gun owners to retain their rights, but we cannot continue to listen to a propaganda machine that defends only the rights of an industry to profit from the shedding of human blood. To do so is to surrender your intellect, and your right to doubt the BS you are fed.

I believe that prohibitions will not work. They failed for drugs, liquor and gambling. They will also fail for guns and abortion. Prohibitions are the knee-jerk reactions of fools.

But there are such things as prudent regulations, especially those that might keep some guns out of the hands of some who don't have the mental stability to act responsibly. How many deaths does it take on one side of the equation to justify regulation on the other side of the equation, even if that regulation is inconvenient to the merchants of firepower, and the purveyors of propaganda?

[Darryl]

Once a law is passed, it is difficult, if not impossible, to repeal it in most cases.

Bureaucratic regulations are even worse, and likely have no review and no recourse.

There are ALREADY laws on the books regarding mental instability. It is also ridiculously easy to get someone committed and nigh on impossible to get it off their record even if they are adjudged competent.

The old saw: give them an inch, they'll take a mile applies.

A step in the right direction: 1) any bill to be passed into law shall be tightly focused and specific, with no addons - related or unrelated. If you must, withdraw it, amend it to fit the specificity and focus requirement and then resubmit; 2) no amendments; 3) no quorums (especially not of like-minded legislators) so use either random selection or vote by the full House/Senate body.