Senate Passes Bipartisan Gun Control Bill [Archive]

Mustangman_2000

12-19-2007, 07:14 PM

Hmm....Something I've been bitching about for years finally gets done. Unfortunately, it took 32 people to die in order for people to embrace a common sense gun control measure.

At any rate, this is great news for gun control advocates like myself.

(AP) The Senate on Wednesday passed a long-stalled bill inspired by the Virginia Tech shootings that would more easily flag prospective gun buyers who have documented mental health problems and help defray the cost to the states.

The voice vote was the result of months of negotiations between the sponsors and the lone senator, Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn, who had objected and delayed passage.

The bill now goes back to the House, which passed similar legislation this year.

The measure would clarify what mental health records should be reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which help gun dealers determine whether to sell a firearm to a prospective buyer, and give states financial incentives for compliance. The attorney general could penalize states if they fail to meet compliance targets.

The bill was supported by political foes on both sides of the gun control debate. Yet Coburn held it up for months because he worried that millions of dollars in new spending would not be paid for by cuts in other programs.

His chief concern, he said, was that it did not pay for successful appeals by veterans or other people who say they are wrongly barred from buying a gun.

Just before midnight Tuesday, Coburn and the Democratic sponsors of the bill struck a deal: The government would pay for the cost of appeals by gun owners and prospective buyers who argue successfully in court that they were wrongly deemed unqualified for mental health reasons.

The compromise would require that incorrect records — such as expunged mental health rulings that once disqualified a prospective gun buyer but no longer do — be removed from system within 30 days.

The original bill would require any agency, such as the Veterans Administration or the Defense Department, to notify a person flagged as mentally ill and disqualified from buying or possessing a gun. The new version now also would require the notification when someone has been cleared of that restriction.

The bill would authorize up to $250 million a year over five years for the states and as much as $125 million a year over the same period for state courts to help defray the cost of enacting the policy.

The House sponsor, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., called for an immediate vote.

Propelling the long-sought legislation were the April 16 killings at Virginia Tech. Student Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 students and himself using two guns he had bought despite his documented history of mental illness.

Cho had been ruled a danger to himself during a court commitment hearing in 2005. He had been ordered to have outpatient mental health treatment and should have been barred from buying the two guns he used. But Virginia never forwarded the information to the national background check system.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/19/national/main3633663.shtml

GT Dan

12-19-2007, 08:54 PM

Cho's problems should have been addressed WAY before he decided to buy a gun and kill people... if all those highly educated bureaucrats at VT had taken action to address his mental issues, it wouldn't have happened... instead, they kicked him out of class and told him to go away..... nice... kinda sounds like arresting a little girl for bringing a steak knife to school and cutting a steak.... someone call the swat team, we have a hostage situation with an 11 year old...

all this does is feed the lawyers...

David

12-19-2007, 08:57 PM

Fox466

12-19-2007, 08:58 PM

all this does is feed the lawyers...

BINGO!

Had he been denied at the storefront, he would have simply gone to the street.

But hey! At least we get another nail in the coffin!

Mustangman_2000

12-19-2007, 09:06 PM

GT Dan

12-19-2007, 09:25 PM

Yes, but have you noticed the reports haven't mentioned where the weapons came from? Were they legally purchased, stolen or bought on the street?

I was traveling when the one in Colorado happened but was she all overr the news as a hero for shooting that scumbag? She should have been. Security Guard shoots and kills a bad guy and STOPS him from killing more people... If they broadcast that like they did Horn in Houston, it supports armed guards which indirectly supports guns...

I understand your point about doing something but I just dont think its going to stop someone who is hell bent on getting a gun and killing a person or people...

Fox466

12-19-2007, 09:34 PM

I don't see how speeding up background checks and screening mental health records could possibly be a bad thing. :confused:

I think it's good policy that may help in preventing future Seung-Hui Cho's from setting more records on deadliest school shootings.

This might help catch those that have falling through the cracks in the system that you mentioned above.

I just look at it as something that might help. It is not perceived as a panacea for gun crimes. Every little bite helps. I don't know if anyone's noticed, but gun violence has been front and center in the media in the last couple of months.

1, I didn't see where it would be speeding anything up. More areas to check would seem to equate to a slower process, not a speedier one.
2, It won't change anything. There are simply too many guns on the streets.
3, "Every little bite helps". Are you referring to bites out of our freedom? Because in actuality that's really all this is, asid from fodder for the lawyers, who probably had a great deal to do with this getting pushed through.
4, sure it's guns now. After the war drum died they had to find something to harp about... :rolleyes:

Slowhand

12-19-2007, 09:59 PM

1, I didn't see where it would be speeding anything up. More areas to check would seem to equate to a slower process, not a speedier one.
2, It won't change anything. There are simply too many guns on the streets.
3, "Every little bite helps". Are you referring to bites out of our freedom? Because in actuality that's really all this is, asid from fodder for the lawyers, who probably had a great deal to do with this getting pushed through.
4, sure it's guns now. After the war drum died they had to find something to harp about... :rolleyes:

We need to keep the focus on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. According to the FBI, 99.8% of guns purchased legally this year will not be used in a violent crime. Take into effect that 1 in 6 violent crimes (generally burglaries) are stopped by a legally purchased firearm, and the actually death toll of guns being legally purchased (slipping through the cracks are not) is very low. It's in the gun shop's best interest to not sell to someone that they don't see fit to own, because as FOX466 said, this is just cannon fodder for lawyers. Next time a legally purchased gun is used in a crime, the lawyers will sue the gun shop on behalf of the killer who they'll say shouldn't have been sold a gun even though he had no previous displays of "insanity." It's going to turn into today's insanity plea; actually insanity is rarely medically proven in cases in which there is an insanity plea. It's just a legal term.

Cliff's Notes: Forget about the tiny percentage of crimes committed using legally purchased arms, and go after the illegally purchased guns. then we can respond the other situations. illegally purchased guns kill more people than do legally purchased ones, and it's by a longshot.

Fox466

12-19-2007, 11:15 PM

illegally purchased guns kill more people than do legally purchased ones, and it's by a longshot.

Good post, but this is the loudest bang. Since we are talking about guns and all... ;)

Mustangman_2000

12-20-2007, 01:06 AM

1, I didn't see where it would be speeding anything up. More areas to check would seem to equate to a slower process, not a speedier one.
2, It won't change anything. There are simply too many guns on the streets.
3, "Every little bite helps". Are you referring to bites out of our freedom? Because in actuality that's really all this is, asid from fodder for the lawyers, who probably had a great deal to do with this getting pushed through.
4, sure it's guns now. After the war drum died they had to find something to harp about... :rolleyes:

I'm simply echoing what was stated in the editorial. A part of the bill would include expedited background checks.

And it is not an attack on gun rights. There is no language in this bill that is trying to abrogate a single gun right for a law abiding citizen. It principally is conducting a screen against mental health records for an individual. Verifying that a potential gun purchaser does not have a history of mental illness is a good thing, not a bad thing. ;)

It's a step in the right direction. And for anyone that feels this is an attack on gun rights, needs to further educate themselves on this bill.

Sorry folks, but when you have a record setting massacre on a school campus this type of legislation is going to manifest itself. It's inevitable. However, this time they put something together that is sensible and not compromising anyone's rights.

forever_frost

12-20-2007, 01:44 AM

So basically you're saying every vet who comes back from Iraq and every vet who has ever gone to the VA for PTSD shouldn't own weapons because we have a history of mental illness?

How about you just fuck up people who have weapons illegally? Or here's one. Demand people be responsible for themselves instead of trying to legislate everything away? Alcohol was deigned "bad" so prohibition. Did it make all the problems go away? No. It caused new, worse ones. So take your gun fearing ass and shut the fuck up and leave those of us who enjoy our weapons the hell alone.

Sean88gt

12-20-2007, 01:48 AM

McCarthy has never introduced anything worthwhile.

Nestromo

12-20-2007, 03:01 AM

What is Mental Illness? I have been diagnosed with adult ADD, does that make me mentaly ill? A buddy of mine has mild PTSD after coming home from Iraq, but he is a tataly functional guy and I trust him completely... is he mentaly ill? How about someone who is prescribed Xanex for social anxiety or something else for depression? Doesn't seem very well defined to me. Just sounds like a way to put another law on the books.

Nestromo

12-20-2007, 03:07 AM

Now that I think about it I know a lot of heroes that are going to be afraid to get help. :mad: :mad:

red93coupe

12-20-2007, 10:31 AM

Muffrazr

12-20-2007, 10:42 AM

I'm simply echoing what was stated in the editorial. A part of the bill would include expedited background checks.

And it is not an attack on gun rights. There is no language in this bill that is trying to abrogate a single gun right for a law abiding citizen. It principally is conducting a screen against mental health records for an individual. Verifying that a potential gun purchaser does not have a history of mental illness is a good thing, not a bad thing. ;)

It's a step in the right direction. And for anyone that feels this is an attack on gun rights, needs to further educate themselves on this bill.

Sorry folks, but when you have a record setting massacre on a school campus this type of legislation is going to manifest itself. It's inevitable. However, this time they put something together that is sensible and not compromising anyone's rights.

In a sense, yes. It headed towards a right direction. However, the bulk of this bill is simply to take responsibility away from those who should have defused the situation before it happened. We need more responsibility instead of more governing legislation. Governing legislation of this type only breeds more people who expect the Gov't to take care of them like mommy and daddy did.

Logistically, I don't see how tougher sanctions for gun owners can relate to speedier allowance of owning a gun.

If the bill had more specific definitions of mental illness I might support it some. There are some folks who do not need to be within 100 feet of a gun.

Nestromo

12-20-2007, 11:43 AM

...where does it end?

Fourth Reich.

Mustangman_2000

12-20-2007, 11:53 AM

So take your gun fearing ass and shut the fuck up and leave those of us who enjoy our weapons the hell alone.

lol

JP135

12-20-2007, 12:01 PM

How exactly will this work, since a common definition of mental illness cannot be established.

Will there be yet another bazillion dollar database?

How many billions of dollars will be wasted on this piece of shit feel-good legislation before somebody realizes it's a complete waste of time and money?

As has been previously stated, if a nut is denied access at a gun stiore, he will buy from a private person OR better yet, break into someone's house and steal a firearm

Strychnine

12-20-2007, 01:37 PM

It helps those politicians look like they are being productive with their time in office and it lets them wash their hands of anything that might happen in the future.

In reality though, if a person really wants to hurt other people this law will be nothing but a speedbump in the road.

despite a special justice's 2005 order to get outpatient treatment for being a danger to himself. There has been no indication that Cho ever received the treatment.

Apparently it wasn't convenient for them to follow up on the court ruling that could have helped him... but now that he didn't get help and caused a ruckus, well shit, they'd better do something! Can punish him, he's dead. Might as well pass some feel good shit!

Had his court order been submitted to the federal database, Cho likely would have been unable to buy the guns.

Despite Cho's gun purchases, Virginia traditionally has submitted far more names of mentally ill people to the federal database than other states, Justice data show. Shortly after the Virginia Tech shootings, officials said the state had given 81,233 names to the FBI

So they already have a system in place... he just fell through the cracks. Again, instead of turning the focus inward on the flawed processes already in place they bandaid their shortcomings with more laws.

Yeah, sounds like the system is just there to help us :rolleyes:

And does anyone have the official definition of "mentally ill" ?

FWIW, Mental Health America, formerly known as the National Mental Health Association, is against this legislation.

Mental Health America is opposed to the current legislation and contends that it will further marginalize the mentally ill, while will not decreasing the rate of gun homicides, as this violence is mainly not perpetrated by the mentally ill.

You may feel safer now... but not much has really changed. Especially if you're in one of the 18 states that does not report to the national mental health database.

Strychnine

12-20-2007, 01:50 PM

Ron Honberg, legal director for the National Alliance on Mental Illness
“It frustrates us that when tragedies like Virginia Tech occur, the focus is on guns and not how somebody like Cho falls through the cracks,” Honberg said.

LOL. What a dumbass. Let 'em fall through! They won't be able to get guns now, so what does it matter?!

:rolleyes:

Dacotua

12-20-2007, 02:07 PM

Hmm....Something I've been bitching about for years finally gets done. Unfortunately, it took 32 people to die in order for people to embrace a common sense gun control measure.

At any rate, this is great news for gun control advocates like myself.

Lets all see your reaction when Bush VETOs this bill.

This just takes away veterans rights, anyone who has seen a shrink, etc...

Still does not Stop the Psychos from going to a school and shooting people, does not stop the psychos from going to the mall and shooting people, does not stop psychos from getting guns.

99.9% of all the people who did all this school shooting/mall shooting/restaurant shooting, etc.. have no background of ever having a "documented" mental case. They just flipped one day and went shooting.

NOTE They always go to "GUN FREE ZONES" and do these killings.

A law that would make sense would be REMOVE ALL GUN FREE ZONES FOR LEGAL CHL HOLDERS.

All these criminals always shoot themselves when someone shows up with a gun. They are cowards.

Mustangman_2000

12-20-2007, 03:44 PM

Lets all see your reaction when Bush VETOs this bill.

Still does not Stop the Psychos from going to a school and shooting people, does not stop the psychos from going to the mall and shooting people, does not stop psychos from getting guns.

99.9% of all the people who did all this school shooting/mall shooting/restaurant shooting, etc.. have no background of ever having a "documented" mental case. They just flipped one day and went shooting.

Cho had documented history of mental illness. This law would have stopped him from at least legally purchasing guns. That is the intent and disposition of this law. Any perceptions outside of that are simply inaccurate.

And I wouldn't count on Bush to VETO this bill. It will have a lot of momentum and public support when it hits the President's desk. He will be in a tough position to VETO this bill in light of the high profile nature of the event that caused it's creation.

Nobody is marketing this as a solution to gun violence. It is simply a measure that could help prevent the very thing the bill was created for.

Keep crying about an attack on your rights, when there is nothing in this bill that is compromising your gun rights. Whatever makes you feel better, I guess. There are family members and friends of 32 deceased individuals that would probably disagree with you in this instance.

I always look forward to these types of embittered responses. There are people on this site that grab their gun when someone rings their doorbell, so I'm not exactly surprised. It must really suck to live your life in such a state of paranoia. Well, not everyone is wired like that. To people like myself it's bewildering to see people constantly worry about being accosted or attacked. I'm a type B personality, so I don't get freaked out easily. I think that's why I clash with a lot of the personalities on this forum.

I support common sense gun control measures such as this particular bill. I think it's prudent and addresses a significant issue regarding gun purchases. Being a gun owner, I would not be on board with this if it was something more insidious and provocative in terms of attacking gun rights.

Dacotua

12-20-2007, 03:57 PM

Keep crying about an attack on your rights, when there is nothing in this bill that is compromising your gun rights. Whatever makes you feel better, I guess. There are family members and friends of 32 deceased individuals that would probably disagree with you in this instance.

Yeah, they were outragged that THE CAMPUS DID NOT LOCK DOWN AFTER THE FIRST SHOOTING OR INFORM STUDENTS AND THEY WERE OUTRAGED THAT THEY COULD NOT HAVE CONCEALED WEAPONS ON CAMPUS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES.

I always look forward to these types of embittered responses. There are people on this site that grab their gun when someone rings their doorbell, so I'm not exactly surprised. It must really suck to live your life in such a state of paranoia. Well, not everyone is wired like that. To people like myself it's bewildering to see people constantly worry about being accosted or attacked. I'm a type B personality, so I don't get freaked out easily. I think that's why I clash with a lot of the personalities on this forum.

It has been proven with statistics that gun related crimes GO DOWN with loosening of the gun control measures. Concealed handgun licenses and open carry has reduced crime, while more strick gun control has INCREASED gun violence.

Lets not forget Adolf Hitler and Stalin put in the most stringent gun control in history and look what resulted. Over 30 million people dead.

I support common sense gun control measures such as this particular bill. I think it's prudent and addresses a significant issue regarding gun purchases. Being a gun owner, I would not be on board with this if it was something more insidious and provocative in terms of attacking gun rights.

I'm a supporter of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Gun control goes against the 2nd Ammendment.

FACT IS More people are killed each year in Car Wrecks than guns. So whats next? Ban Cars?

Lots of mental case people drive cars, should we revoke licenses for someone with ADD or Vets coming back from Iraq?

Look at the news, England who has banned guns for a long time is now banning swords.

GT Dan

12-20-2007, 04:01 PM

Muffrazr

12-20-2007, 04:06 PM

Cho had documented history of mental illness. This law would have stopped him from at least legally purchasing guns. That is the intent and disposition of this law. Any perceptions outside of that are simply inaccurate.

Cho should have received the help he needed when he was diagnosed with mental problems. Instead they pushed him aside and told him to go away. Well, that worked real well.

And I wouldn't count on Bush to VETO this bill. It will have a lot of momentum and public support when it hits the President's desk. He will be in a tough position to VETO this bill in light of the high profile nature of the event that caused it's creation.

Why would he be in a tough position? He can't be re-elected, so we'll see if Pelosi has his balls or not.

Nobody is marketing this as a solution to gun violence. It is simply a measure that could help prevent the very thing the bill was created for.

You are absolutely correct. This bill will prevent the legislators from being held accountable up tp the point where Americans realize how ludicrous this bill really is.

Keep crying about an attack on your rights, when there is nothing in this bill that is compromising your gun rights. Whatever makes you feel better, I guess. There are family members and friends of 32 deceased individuals that would probably disagree with you in this instance.

I haven't found anything that will compromise my rights, yet. However, with a vague description of mental illness, where will the line be drawn? Hypothetically, let's say I get a divorce and I'm broken up about it. A doctor prescribes me something to help me sleep at night due to anxiety. Anxiety can be a mental disorder to some degree, so does this mean I can't get a gun?

I always look forward to these types of embittered responses. There are people on this site that grab their gun when someone rings their doorbell, so I'm not exactly surprised. It must really suck to live your life in such a state of paranoia. Well, not everyone is wired like that. To people like myself it's bewildering to see people constantly worry about being accosted or attacked. I'm a type B personality, so I don't get freaked out easily. I think that's why I clash with a lot of the personalities on this forum.

What you see here is not embittered, simply stating my side of understanding of this bill. I generally don't get freaked out, but occasionally I do. I don't keep a firearm on me all the time, nor grab it to answer the door. I can't recall ever living my life in paranoia, so where do I fit in? As far as clashing, well, I think I do a pretty good job of that.

I support common sense gun control measures such as this particular bill. I think it's prudent and addresses a significant issue regarding gun purchases. Being a gun owner, I would not be on board with this if it was something more insidious and provocative in terms of attacking gun rights.

I support the idea of keeping guns out of the hands of psychotic individuals. This bill will not do that. This bill is barely even a band-aid. It is far too vague for reasonable legislature, so I doubt it will pass in it's current state. Hopefully our lawmakers will see it needs refining before actually passing it.

I know you and I see things differently most of the time, but if this bill passes in it's current form, then you will begin to see where the problems are. Unfortunately, it will be too late by then.

I put my words in bold only to differentiate your words and mine. No yelling here.

JP135

12-20-2007, 04:26 PM

Cho had documented history of mental illness. This law would have stopped him from at least legally purchasing guns. That is the intent and disposition of this law. Any perceptions outside of that are simply inaccurate.

And I wouldn't count on Bush to VETO this bill. It will have a lot of momentum and public support when it hits the President's desk. He will be in a tough position to VETO this bill in light of the high profile nature of the event that caused it's creation.

Nobody is marketing this as a solution to gun violence. It is simply a measure that could help prevent the very thing the bill was created for.

Keep crying about an attack on your rights, when there is nothing in this bill that is compromising your gun rights. Whatever makes you feel better, I guess. There are family members and friends of 32 deceased individuals that would probably disagree with you in this instance.

I always look forward to these types of embittered responses. There are people on this site that grab their gun when someone rings their doorbell, so I'm not exactly surprised. It must really suck to live your life in such a state of paranoia. Well, not everyone is wired like that. To people like myself it's bewildering to see people constantly worry about being accosted or attacked. I'm a type B personality, so I don't get freaked out easily. I think that's why I clash with a lot of the personalities on this forum.

I support common sense gun control measures such as this particular bill. I think it's prudent and addresses a significant issue regarding gun purchases. Being a gun owner, I would not be on board with this if it was something more insidious and provocative in terms of attacking gun rights.

Oh look, MM2K quoted someone completely out of context in a firearms thread!

I am the one whom you're referring to here. My post about answering the door with a pistol referred to doing it when someone I cannot recognize rings the doorbell and this was within the context of a thread related to some guy showing up and casing a board member's house with an obvious bullshit story about 'does Mr Jackson live here?'.

And to clarify, I don't answer the door in a damned weaver stance, I just have it handy (and out of view) in case the need happens to arise. But then I carried a firearm as part of my job for 25 years, and made it a common practice to run into places you would run from. I've been in more than a few deadly force encounters and I'm still kicking, so just maybe I have a relevant point of view to make that decision for myself. Like you, I seldom find myself "freaked out" and I do not suffer from paranoia.

If you're gonna use my posts to support your goofy opinions, at least make some attempt to do it within context.

Does it ever strike you as hypocritical that you have guns and want your second amendment rights left alone, but support the party that does their level best to strip you of those rights?

TexasDevilDog

12-20-2007, 04:33 PM

Well with the amount of kids on ritalin, I would say that 30-40% of the future adult males will be unable to own a gun, be a police man and be able to be drafted.

forever_frost

12-20-2007, 04:53 PM

Now that I think about it I know a lot of heroes that are going to be afraid to get help. :mad: :mad:

It's stuff like this that makes me not want to go to the VA to see my shrink. I know I need help, but not if it costs me my weapons.

Strychnine

12-20-2007, 04:59 PM

Cho had documented history of mental illness. This law would have stopped him from at least legally purchasing guns. That is the intent and disposition of this law. Any perceptions outside of that are simply inaccurate.

Like I mentioned earlier, he "fell through the cracks". A federal law was already in place.

Under federal law, the Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho should have been prohibited from purchasing a gun after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment, a government official and several legal experts said Friday.
Federal authorities apparently have not noticed Virginia’s failure to comply with federal guidelines restricting gun sales to the mentally ill
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/20/us/20cnd-guns.html?ex=1334721600&en=c17c6f5750a6084d&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Sounds like a problem with the system to me, not law :confused:

I support common sense gun control measures such as this particular bill. I think it's prudent and addresses a significant issue regarding gun purchases. Being a gun owner, I would not be on board with this if it was something more insidious and provocative in terms of attacking gun rights.

With all due respect, you are what some would call a "Fudd" or a "Zumbo."

You are a gun owner, sure, but you have no problem throwing others under the bus as long as no one looks your direction with new laws.

You think that semi auto rifles are nothing more than bullet hoses and serve no legitimate purpose (assuming, for some fucked up reason, that the purpose needs to be justified to begin with)

You think that its ok to punish law abiding citizens on "general principle"

You actively campaign for laws that would restrict the rights of your fellow citizens while proclaiming it OK because they do not target things you personally own.

Basically, you are "on board with this" until if affects you.

Keep crying about an attack on your rights, when there is nothing in this bill that is compromising your gun rights.

...says the guy who is not affected.

There are plenty of upstanding law abiding citizens out there who will will basically lose their second ammendment right. I guess those vets who got "current" diagnoses 5, 10, 40 years ago are all now guilty until proven innocent, huh?

Well, then again, they won't fully lose it because they can just buy from any number of private citizens... just like the true wackos you somehow think will be stopped by this bill. :rolleyes:

But sure, call me paranoid, call me emibttered, tell me my life sucks, etc, etc.

BTW, I love the logic displayed by the bill's supporters
"This bill will make America safer without affecting the rights of a single law-abiding citizen,"

Basically saying that anyone who has been determined to be "mentally ill" is no longer a law abiding citizen.

turbo93gt

12-20-2007, 05:15 PM

id like to know what they consider a mental health problem. im sure they will try to get medical records of anyone who has ever been to a therepist for any issue. this is just a big black hole and they will use it as they see fit. "mental health problems" is a pretty vague term and everyone in america has probably been in a mental state at one time or another that could be considered a "mental health problem." so much for second ammendment rights. freedom my ass.

Mustangman_2000

12-20-2007, 09:01 PM

Does it ever strike you as hypocritical that you have guns and want your second amendment rights left alone, but support the party that does their level best to strip you of those rights?

See that's just it. I don't see anyone stripping me of my right to bare arms. What I see is people over-reacting to legislation that is not targeting your guns. I think this particular bill makes sense and so does the majority of the U.S. Congress. Hence the reason it is labeled bi-partisan.

For the life of me, I cannot see the threat that others see regarding this matter. You can argue the hypothetical all you want, but the reality is that nobody is preventing you from going to the gun shop and purchasing a weapon.

People like yourself keep decrying gun control legislation and insinuating that big brother is coming after your guns. It's non-sense. Plain and simple.

Reality is, you and I are gun owners. Nobody has ever come knocking at the door to take our guns away. We can walk into Outdoor World right now and buy guns until you run out of money.

Therefore, I am and will always be at a loss on this type of reaction. I've been listening to this stuff for many years. In 1994, I listened to many people talk about with great fervor how the government was going to start taking our guns away...blah blah.

Uh oh, I still have my guns and so does everyone else. Hmm....

Mustangman_2000

12-20-2007, 09:09 PM

With all due respect, you are what some would call a "Fudd" or a "Zumbo."

You are a gun owner, sure, but you have no problem throwing others under the bus as long as no one looks your direction with new laws. I would disagree.

You think that semi auto rifles are nothing more than bullet hoses and serve no legitimate purpose. Correct!

You think that its ok to punish law abiding citizens on "general principle" Only regarding assault weapons and issues contained in this new bill.

You actively campaign for laws that would restrict the rights of your fellow citizens while proclaiming it OK because they do not target things you personally own. Same answer as above..

There are plenty of upstanding law abiding citizens out there who will will basically lose their second ammendment right. I guess those vets who got "current" diagnoses 5, 10, 40 years ago are all now guilty until proven innocent, huh?

Well, then again, they won't fully lose it because they can just buy from any number of private citizens... just like the true wackos you somehow think will be stopped by this bill. :rolleyes:

Basically saying that anyone who has been determined to be "mentally ill" is no longer a law abiding citizen. That's an interesting argument. Everyone should have gun rights regardless of their situation?? No, I don't agree with that at all. That's a dangerous point of view. IMO............

David

12-20-2007, 09:10 PM

See that's just it. I don't see anyone stripping me of my right to bare arms. What I see is people over-reacting to legislation that is not targeting your guns. I think this particular bill makes sense and so does the majority of the U.S. Congress. Hence the reason it is labeled bi-partisan.

For the life of me I cannot see the urgency that other see regarding this matter. You can argue the hypothetical all you want, but the reality is that nobody is preventing you from going to the gun shop and purchasing a weapon.

People like yourself keep decrying gun control legislation and insinuating that big brother is coming after your guns. It's non-sense. Plain and simple.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda, ...that's all it is.

Reality is, you and I are gone owners. Nobody has ever come knocking at the door to take our guns away. We can walk into Outdoor World right now and buy guns until you run out of money.

Therefore, I am and will always be at a loss on these types of reaction. I've listening to this stuff for many years. In 1994 I listened to many people tell me how the government was going to start taking our guns away...blah blah.

Uh oh, I still have my guns and so does everyone else. Hmm....

It's the snowball method. You pass one bill, who's to say others that are more dangerous to our rights wont. One day its a ban on the looks of firearms, the next is because of some other bullshit.

Today it's because someone is labeled "crazy" by whomever deems necessary. Tomorrow it's because you can make logical thoughts.

Strychnine

12-20-2007, 09:15 PM

Nobody has ever come knocking at the door to take our guns away.

How about this.

First you legislate away the ability for people to purchase guns... starting with things like this bill.

Then you start a registry... like some states already have.

Then within the registry you eliminate the ability to transfer from one person to another.

Guess who has all the guns in the next generation. It wont be law abiding citizens.

Like Red said it's a slippery slope, and as we all know, politicians aren't ones to give in or give up once they have a taste for something.

turbo93gt

12-20-2007, 10:58 PM

this whole gun control BS irritates me. its like having a serious disease and your doctor only treats the symptoms, not the cause. the cause of all the violence is people, not guns. people that think violence will go away if firearms go away are stupid, plain and simple. it will mean my grandparents wont be able to protect themselves from a 300lb ice head that wants what theyve got, and doesnt want to leave any witnesses to the crime.

lets focus on the problem, violence. not a tool used to perpatrate the violence that can just as easily protect the victim. Sorry mustangman_2000, but this whole bill is just another infringement of our second ammedment rights. and people like you are the ones that are responsible for it. who defines "metal health problems"? thats a pretty broad statement, and to me this is far worse then any hardware ban like we had in 1994. the government isnt going to come to our houses and take our guns. what they are going to do is pass a bunch of "not so bad" laws that a bunch of gun owners think dont effect them. but over time every single new law (that does nothing to stop violence) is going to effect future generations. and then there will be no more 2nd ammendment RIGHT.

can you honestly tell me that with Cho's plan, he wouldnt find a way to get a gun illegally even if there was no way he could have gotten one from a dealer. if he could plan a premeditated slaughter of innocent people, he could plan to get a gun. his mental health state had nothing to do with him getting a gun. he was going to get one any way he could. it comes down to the fact that the people who had the opportunity to stop him didnt. and the fact that people were not allowed their basic right to self defense on that college campus just made the execution of his plan all the easier.

That_Is_My_El_Camino

12-20-2007, 11:06 PM

...........You honestly think semi-automatic rifles serve no legitimate purpose? What makes a semi-automatic rifle any less legitimate than your beloved 30-30 lever action?

turbo93gt

12-20-2007, 11:37 PM

i have no use for a semi auto high round count rifle, however, if someone wants to own one and it doesnt infringe upon my rights, fine.

i just finished emailing Senators Cornyn and Hutcheson and let them know because of their support of HR 2640 they would be receiving one less vote next election. i posted it under veterans affairs since this issue has to do with veterans losing their RIGHT to self defense.

i think everyone should be aware that this bill has the following ramifications:

The core of the bill's problems is section 101(c)(1)(C), which makes
you a "prohibited person" on the basis of a "medical finding of
disability," so long as a veteran had an "opportunity" for some sort
of "hearing" before some "lawful authority" (other than a court).
Presumably, this "lawful authority" could even be the psychiatrist
himself.

unlike with an accused murderer, the hearing doesn't have
to occur. The "lawful authority" doesn't have to be unbiased. The
veteran is not necessarily entitled to an attorney -- much less an
attorney financed by the government.

What the bill does is to lock in -- statutorily -- huge
numbers of additional law-abiding Americans who will now be denied
the right to own a firearm.

And then it "graciously" allows these newly disarmed Americans to
spend tens of thousands of dollars for a long-shot chance to regain
the gun rights this very bill takes away from them.

they can hire a lawyer and beg the agency that took their
rights away to voluntarily give them back. But the agency doesn't
have to do anything but sit on its hands. And, after 365 days of
inaction, guess what happens? The newly disarmed veteran can spend
thousands of additional dollars to sue. And, as the plaintiff, the
wrongly disarmed veteran has the burden of proof.

forever_frost

12-20-2007, 11:58 PM

See that's just it. I don't see anyone stripping me of my right to bare arms. What I see is people over-reacting to legislation that is not targeting your guns. I think this particular bill makes sense and so does the majority of the U.S. Congress. Hence the reason it is labeled bi-partisan.

For the life of me, I cannot see the threat that others see regarding this matter. <b>You can argue the hypothetical all you want, but the reality is that nobody is preventing you from going to the gun shop and purchasing a weapon. </b>

People like yourself keep decrying gun control legislation and insinuating that big brother is coming after your guns. It's non-sense. Plain and simple.

Reality is, you and I are gun owners. Nobody has ever come knocking at the door to take our guns away. We can walk into Outdoor World right now and buy guns until you run out of money.

Therefore, I am and will always be at a loss on this type of reaction. I've been listening to this stuff for many years. In 1994, I listened to many people talk about with great fervor how the government was going to start taking our guns away...blah blah.

Uh oh, I still have my guns and so does everyone else. Hmm....

For me it's more than hypothetical. As a vet who was shot in the head in Iraq AND diagnosed with PTSD there is possibility, a VERY real one that this could affect me. What does it mean? I'm stockpiling weapons now and will just stop buying them from stores. I can always get weapons, but now I have a roadblock. So fuck you and your closed minded "it's not bothering me so it must be right" attitude.

SBBII

12-21-2007, 12:40 AM

The system failed. More mediocre legislation doesn't solve the problem.

1) Under EXISTING law, Cho shouldn't have been able to purchase firearms from a dealer. McCarthy's legislation adds complexity but doesn't address existing flaws in the system. To wit:

2) Cho had been ruled a danger to himself and others, but the oversight necessary to ensure he received help NEVER HAPPENED. Pansy-ass VT administrators had multiple warnings from faculty and students about him. No one did anything.

3) He was able to perpatrate his horror in a GUN FREE ZONE. In Israel, after terrorist attacks on schools, teachers were allowed arms. School attacks were thwarted, then on-campus attack numbers plummeted. Cho was crazy, but not stupid - he knew that the likelihood of an armed citizen response was nil. Had on-campus concealed carry been legal, the possibility of an armed civilian response would have existed. Even better than early termination of his acts is the possibility that he wouldn't have undertaken them.

4) This vaguely-thought out and vaguely-worded legislation leaves most definitions open to interpretation. Like all legislative efforts, it's subject to the law of un-intended consequences. As has already been stated, it will have a chilling impact on people who might seek help but are rightfully afraid of being incorrectly labeled 'mentally ill' and barred from firearms ownership. In many cases, these are veterans - men and women who went in harm's way for the rest of us and who are inadequately treated for the ills they suffered by the government they served.

Cliff notes: It's another vaguely drawn piece of feel-good legislation, doing little or nothing to address the supposed problem while actively limiting use of already mediocre mental health services.

I said in another thread that the fundamental difference is between those who believe in individual rights and the responsibilities that come with them, and those who believe in collective authority and ignore the usurpation of freedom stemming from its inevitable abuse.

Mindset makes you a guard dog. Gun ownership doesn't prevent you from being a sheep.

Mustangman_2000

12-21-2007, 03:00 PM

How about this.

First you legislate away the ability for people to purchase guns... starting with things like this bill.

Then you start a registry... like some states already have.

Then within the registry you eliminate the ability to transfer from one person to another.

Guess who has all the guns in the next generation. It wont be law abiding citizens.

Like Red said it's a slippery slope, and as we all know, politicians aren't ones to give in or give up once they have a taste for something.

I understand the logic behind what you're saying. It's a valid concern.

My retort is a repeat of what I've said above. I think people tend the exaggerate the perceived danger of this type of legislation. I guess I've just listen to this rhetoric about losing your gun rights for so long I've become jaded. You keep hearing the dissent and yet you still have gun rights and the freedoms you've always enjoyed. Years and years of listening to these 'what if?' scenarios and I still have guns in my closet.

I stopped into Doc's Gun Shop the other day to get a new ejector spring and there were a room full of people buying guns off the shelves. Pick up shells for the winchester and glock and i'm outta there. And life goes on.

On internet message boards we are teetering on a dangerous precipice of losing our 2nd Amendment Rights. However, in the real world you go to the local gun shop, store, or gun show and buy guns until your hearts content.

So, you'll have to pardon my confusion and "small minded" point of view.

We'll all just have to agree to disagree on effectiveness or need of this particular Bill.

Mustangman_2000

12-21-2007, 03:02 PM

You honestly think semi-automatic rifles serve no legitimate purpose? What makes a semi-automatic rifle any less legitimate than your beloved 30-30 lever action?

They absolutely serve a purpose in war or in combat. However, I personally feel they don't belong in civilian life.

It's not about legitimacy. It's about volume and capacity.

Mustangman_2000

12-21-2007, 03:03 PM

So fuck you and your closed minded "it's not bothering me so it must be right" attitude.

That's cool, bro.

Strychnine

12-21-2007, 03:04 PM

I understand the logic behind what you're saying. It's a valid concern.

My retort is a repeat of what I've said above. I think people tend the exaggerate the perceived danger of this type of legislation. I guess I've just listen to this rhetoric about losing your gun rights for so long I've become jaded. You keep hearing the dissent and yet you still have gun rights and the freedoms you've always enjoyed. Years and years of listening to these 'what if?' scenarios and I still have guns in my closet. .

And IMO, when the people become jaded to a threat... that's the best time to hit 'em with it.

I sincerely hope I am wrong about all of this. If I make it to 100 and my concerns are/were totally unfounded, I will proudly say I was wrong and I will do it with a smile on my face.

In the mean time though, not everyone can let down their guard. You trust all you want, I'll remain skeptical.

It's not like we have any real power in the end anyway. :(

.

Strychnine

12-21-2007, 03:07 PM

It's about volume and capacity.

BTW, this really isn't much of an argument.

1000 rounds is 1000 rounds no matter how you divide them up. One big (theoretical) 1000 rd beta mag, or 100 seperate 10 rd mags... and reloads take mere seconds so that's not really a point of contention.

If someone wants to unload 1000 rds in a mall, it's going to happen either way.

Just sayin'.

Mustangman_2000

12-21-2007, 03:12 PM

forever_frost

12-21-2007, 07:38 PM

Nestromo

12-21-2007, 07:43 PM

forever_frost

12-21-2007, 07:49 PM

Nestromo

12-21-2007, 08:04 PM

My thought exactly. I know of many vets who will refuse help now, me included. I told my gun dealer today I'll be stocking up just in case, because I WILL have firearms. You cut my ability to buy ones from dealers, then i will buy them privately.

CASE IN POINT.

Where is the grasp on reality? And how is it that our medical care is the business of big brother? Whatever happened to nondisclosure and **gasp** privacy?

Mustangman_2000

12-21-2007, 08:05 PM

Mustangman,
So what do you tell all of us vets who did our time overseas fighting for these rights that are being stripped? What do you tell my friend missing an arm or leg or me with a bullet in the head diagnosed with PTSD? That since we did our duty and served we aren't worthy of collecting firearms?

No, that's not what I'm saying.

I think if someone's application gets flagged under this new Bill, that is should only be for a mental history that presents a danger to himself or others. I don't think that someone who suffers for Schizophrenia or has multiple personality disorder should be aloud to buy a gun. Or anyone that has been diagnosed with any kind of unstable or violent behavior for that matter.

I do not think that PTSD or Panic Disorder or Generalized Anxiety Disorder are diagnoses that should be flagged. However, PTSD is a condition where people have turned to violence outburst and acts of violence. That particular diagnoses is a huge gray area from a medical standpoint. I don't know how you can give a definitive answer on that.

However, if a veteran, or anyone for that matter, was sitting around the house hearing voices that aren't really there... I sure as the hell don't think they should have legal access to guns. I don't care what your background is.

Nestromo

12-21-2007, 08:20 PM

I think what the bill says is "Thank you for serving our country, now go piss up a flagpole".

And MM2k - Thats a lot of "I think" and "I don't think". These are your personal opinions and do not represent the nature of the bill, yet you still support it. Sounds to me like it makes you "feel good".

And to me a law preventing the sale of guns to dangerous peope is like a sign that says "School Zone : No Drunk Drivers".

Next up: Legislating a standard color of bandana to reduce gang violence.

forever_frost

12-21-2007, 08:23 PM

Oh, I hear voices, I sleep every night seeing those I shot, yet I have yet to go on a killing spree with my "assualt weapons." You know what? It's not going to happen either. How about everyone stop trying to legislate everything that makes them feel bad and punish the person for fucking up?

You're saying what <b>should</b> be, but not what this bill says. It says "mental disorder." Tell you what, find me research where those with PTSD, Anxiety disorders, MPD, or panic disorders are more prone to shoot people. One study. Any study. In comparison to those "normal" people

JP135

12-21-2007, 08:40 PM

Oh, I hear voices, I sleep every night seeing those I shot...

Perfectly normal for someone in your position (keep your head up, Bud; it gets better with time). I've had issues with PTSD too. I've never gone on a murdeous rampage either and don't intend to anytime soon.

BUT if the doc would have written either frost or my papers up differently, we'd be listed as nut cases. And that's one of the points we're trying to make here: The definition of mental illness is too subjective.

Lets sat some ordinary Joe is under some stress, having a rough time and can't sleep. He goes see the doc and doc prescribes him zoloft or paxil, then codes the office visit as "depression", now Joe is well and truly fucked as far as buying a gun.

Same scenario, different doc. Doc writes up the visit as "difficulty sleeping". Now Joe's gun ownership rights are unaffected.

Do you really want such a subjective call by a third party to be the deciding factor on your constitutional rights?

Nestromo

12-21-2007, 08:49 PM

Back to what I was saying for just a second... why the fuck does big brother have access to our personal medical history to begin with?

forever_frost

12-21-2007, 08:51 PM

Thanks JP. I've discovered some good people on here.

You're not answering me Mustang. Why should I lose my right to own a weapon because of my service? What is to keep millions who suffer from sleep disorders or bouts of depression or hell, anything, from losing their rights? The call of a third party? Someone who met me for 10 minutes and then makes a diagnosis? Tell me, if I said if you have 2 DWI's you can't own a weapon, or if you are caught speeding, since speeding is a disregard for law and safety of yourself and others, you lose your ability to own a weapon. How fair are those laws? it's the same thing. Don't pick and choose my rights. I want every one of them.

forever_frost

12-21-2007, 08:53 PM

Back to what I was saying for just a second... why the fuck does big brother have access to our personal medical history to begin with?

Exactly. Come on Mustang, you're so happy with this new bill. Defend it.

black01gt

12-21-2007, 09:20 PM

Back to what I was saying for just a second... why the fuck does big brother have access to our personal medical history to begin with?
You guys sound like Ron Paul supporters. Watch David slay the Giant!

The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens’ personal matters.

We must stop the move toward a national ID card system. All states are preparing to issue new driver’s licenses embedded with “standard identifier” data — a national ID. A national ID with new tracking technologies means we’re heading into an Orwellian world of no privacy. I voted against the Real ID Act in March of 2005.

To date, the privacy focus has been on identity theft. It was Congress that created this danger by mandating use of the standard identifier (currently your SSN) in the private sector. For example, banks use SSNs as customer account identifiers because the government requires it.

We must also protect medical privacy. Right now, you’re vulnerable. Under so-called “medical privacy protection” rules, insurance companies and other entities have access to your personal medical information.

Financial privacy? Right now depositing $10,000 or more in cash in your local bank account will generate a federally-mandated report to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network at the United States Department of the Treasury.

And then there’s the so-called Patriot Act. As originally proposed, it:

Expanded the federal government's ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight;
Allowed nationwide search warrants non-specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight;
Made it far easier for the government to monitor private internet usage;
Authorized “sneak and peek” warrants enabling federal authorities to search a person’s home, office, or personal property without that person’s knowledge; and
Required libraries and bookstores to turn over records of books read by their patrons.
I have fought this fight for many years. I sponsored a bill to overturn the Patriot Act and have won some victories, but today the threat to your liberty and privacy is very real. We need leadership at the top that will prevent Washington from centralizing power and private data about our lives.
RON PAUL

ALLAN

12-21-2007, 09:29 PM

Chip away a little at a time.

SBBII

12-21-2007, 09:31 PM

I agree that Virginia Tech's failings on that day could have avoided further violence. Cho's case was a cluster fuck from top to bottom.

However, I still see this Bill as something that would help thwart or slow down someone just like Cho trying to purchase weapons. It would have forced him to go procure a firearm illegally. I see that as one additional step he would have had to take to get a weapon.

Supporting this Bill doesn't make someone a "sheep". It is a difference of a opinion regarding gun control legislation. I'm one of many many people that feel this way. Philosophical differences tend to happen during the course of a debate. That's all normal in case you're new at this.

You must believe in the tooth fairy.

turbo93gt

12-21-2007, 10:51 PM

You must believe in the tooth fairy.

dont tell him santa isnt real.

Nestromo

12-21-2007, 10:55 PM

dont tell him santa isnt real.

Man you just can't stop fuckin shit up lately. :mad: :mad:

JP135

12-21-2007, 10:57 PM

You must believe in the tooth fairy.

Only if she treats everyone with fairness and agrees that socialized dental care is best.

Mustangman_2000

12-22-2007, 12:04 AM

You must believe in the tooth fairy.

Funny.

Mustangman_2000

12-22-2007, 12:08 AM

Oh, I hear voices, I sleep every night seeing those I shot, yet I have yet to go on a killing spree with my "assualt weapons." You know what? It's not going to happen either. How about everyone stop trying to legislate everything that makes them feel bad and punish the person for fucking up?

I'm not legislating anything. I'm not a member of the U.S. Congress. I'm just a private citizen that has an opinion.

If you don't like it, then too bad. I don't care either way. If you don't like opinions that are contrary to your own then maybe this forum isn't the best fit for you.

Fox466

12-22-2007, 12:40 AM

It would have forced him to go procure a firearm illegally.

I can't believe that you guys missed this but....

How long has it been illegal to purchase fire arms on the street?

ALLAN

12-22-2007, 07:24 AM

I can't believe that you guys missed this but....

How long has it been illegal to purchase fire arms on the street?
Guess I have sevevral illegal firearms from FTF sales. :rolleyes:

Fox466

12-22-2007, 09:01 AM

Exactly Allan.

MM, what is an illegal purchase?

Paladin

12-22-2007, 06:05 PM

Exactly Allan.

MM, what is an illegal purchase?

The only one I can think of is when a convicted felon buys one, and then it is only the possession of it off his property that matters, not the actual purchase.

I think the liberals definition is one where there is no official transaction that the government has a record of. :cool:

Shorty

12-22-2007, 07:02 PM

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b68/iluvyourmom04/chochotrain.gif

turbo93gt

12-22-2007, 08:58 PM

I'm not legislating anything. I'm not a member of the U.S. Congress. I'm just a private citizen that has an opinion.

If you don't like it, then too bad. I don't care either way. If you don't like opinions that are contrary to your own then maybe this forum isn't the best fit for you.

this legislation opens the door for upstanding veterans to not be able to purchase firearms from a dealer, when they are otherwise allowed to as provided by the second ammendment. just because it doesnt effect you doesnt mean you should support the infringment of the second ammendment rights of other citizens. im sure you are going to be all about taking rights from others because it makes you feel good until the government turns to you to take your rights. at that point i bet you will start to think its a pretty big fucking deal. you started this thread with a big thumbs up by it, and now that everyone is disagreeing with your stance about taking rights away from people that have protected YOUR rights you get all pouty. what will it take to make you understand that just because you have an opinion doesnt mean you should permit congress to vote on who gets to keep their constitutional rights?