Senate Gun Bill Compromise Reached

Like the fact that it provdes funding for mental illness. Anyone who picks up a weapon to kill schoolkids is mentally ill, and we need the resources to identify the dangerous and lock them down by any means neccessary before they act.
As to the general murder rate in cities often used as some sort of comparison, if we were able to protect schoolkids so not one of them was ever murdered in their classrom again, that would not change the murder rate in this country. Been that way since day one and will never change.

Baltimore, with a population of 586,000, had more homicides last year -- 338 -- than thirty-one states and the District of Columbia. In fact, one Zip Code in Baltimore, 21215, had more homicides -- 45 -- than eighteen states. These are almost all due to gang violence or young men preying upon each other, and no, there is no new gun law or crime law that will prevent that.

Sources:

List of U.S. states and territories by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

Baltimore City Homicides
 
In my experience it happens a LOT more than people might think. The domestic abuse statutes, albeit with a laudable goal have indeed been weaponized by spouses-I see it first hand every day...

Years ago, when my marriage was unraveling but we had not yet separated, my wife shouted at me during an argument that she was going to call the police, and tell them that I had guns and that I had threatened her. (I had, of course, done no such thing.)

I called my attorney, who told me to get all of my guns out of the house immediately, to take them somewhere, anywhere else, right now.

So there I was, in the evening, emptying my safe and loading up my car, so I could take everything that goes bang to a rented storage space.

As an old man once wisely told me: You marry one girl, but you divorce another...
 
I can't even begin to talk about supporting "Red Flag" (or "Yellow Flag") laws until there is a mandatory and substantial penalty for malicious reporting.

25 years later my blood still boils when I think about what my ex-wife and her bottom feeding lawyer put me through during a divorce proceeding....

You’ve been sorely missed Drew.
 
"Mental health" is a worthless topic. Any time looking at the field of psychology and psychiatry shows that these studies are in the dark ages of their medical fields, and they are incapable of actually healing the insane.

In real medicine, we define disease by cause, not by symptom. But, read the through the DSM manuals, and you will realize they are nothing but cold reading, child's own collections of symptoms, and not actual factual diagnosis of disease. A quick look through shows that many of the definitions are closer to women's magazine questionaires, and are just as thoroughly useless. The field of diagnosis is at best nearly useless, and at worst dangerous in its capacity for abuse. Personality disorders and diagnosis for "mental illness" have been abused in the past, and will be again in the future. Hardly solid, useful medicine and science.

Even when they can diagnose certain obvious problems, like severe bipolar or disabled or deranged schizophrenics, their ability to treat is often limited, or sometimes nearly useless. Certainly, some bipolar people have shown great progress with treatment, but many psychotic people can only be "treated" with major tranquilizers and kept permanently institutionalized. Which is hardly better than what was used to "treat" them before modern "mental health care". Often, the real "treatment' is just to dope them up so badly they can't act crazy.

Anti depression treatments that often WORSEN symptoms instead of improve them (notice how many mass shooters were on medication from your vaunted "mental healthcare system"), we have more counselors and people are encouraged to talk talk about their emotional problems, yet all these "mental health care professionals" are more prevalent even as suicides go UP, depression goes up, and people are MORE unhealthy.

These people don't have any answers, they can't help the sick, and they can't go around diagnosing and "fixing" the dangerous people. They have been given endless resources and support, been pushed into all institutions in society, and yet under their care, many things have only gotten worse. Do not simply give into "logical fallacy, appeal to authority". They are powerless, and the problems you want to fix so badly aren't within their ability to fix.

One of the greatest social cancers after WW 2 was this boundless optimism, this mass insanity that Man had finally overcome every obstacle and could fix anything, that technocrats and magic scientists could do anything and had no limits. They aren't magic, they can't do everything, the State and scientists are not omnipotent.

More money and support for "mental health", a worthless mantra mindlessly repeated, at best will do absolutely nothing positive. At worst, it will lead to Soviet style abuses of the population.

Resist the temptation.

Money and support for mental health will at least identify these people that have issues and and mandatory reporting would stop the legal purchase of guns by the mentally unfit. In my part of middle America there is VERY little help, several weeks or even a month or more to see a mental health professional unless it is court ordered.
 
- we have a toxic gun sub culture that the other 99% of us firearms owners and shooter need to stomp on as part of our being more responsible in wielding and preserving our second amendment rights.

I think I understand where BB57 is coming from here. As a motorcycle rider I would refer you to the old quote from the American Motorcycle Association when asked about some “clubs”.

“The American Motorcycle Association stated: “99% of the motorcycling public are law-abiding; there are 1% who are not.” Thus, the “1%” patch is worn only by clubs immersed in criminality and large enough to defend the claim to be the “baddest of the bad” against all. The “one-percenter” patch.”

As a Harley rider I would prefer not to be grouped with them. The same is applicable to most any group including gun owners.

Just my humble opinion.
 
Any view behind the curtain yet at the text of what the wizards of smart are agreeing to on our behalf?

I also want to know what the pro-2A constituency is getting in return. My guess is nothing.
 
Last edited:
Last I read, they were bogged down on language addressing the Red Flag “Boy-Friend Loop hole”. Not really sure what that “loop hole” is…..
 
Last I read, they were bogged down on language addressing the Red Flag “Boy-Friend Loop hole”. Not really sure what that “loop hole” is…..

I think it would extend misdemeanor domestic violence to include violence by a significant other and not only spouses cohabitants and the parent of a child. Could be very messy. Would it apply to people who were just dating and during the breakup the women slaps the guy and say: “I hate you because you two-timed behind my back and I wish you would drop dead”
 
Last edited:
I think it would extend misdemeanor domestic violence to include violence by a significant other and not only spouses cohabitants and the parent of a child. Could be very messy. Would it apply to people who were just dating and during the breakup the women slaps the guy and say: “I hate you because you two-timed behind my back and I wish you would drop dead”

Yeah, I could see where that would get really messy and quickly.
 
Any view behind the curtain yet at the text of what the wizards of smart are agreeing to on our behalf?

I also want to know what the pro-2A constituency is getting in return. My guess is nothing.
We've 'gotten back' the end of the AWB, CCW liberalized over most of the country, C&R licensing to make collector's lives easier, ability to buy ammo, reloading components, and order firearms online, SCOTUS affirmation that self-defense is a legitimate reason to possess firearms, open carry in many states, to name a few things.

This notion that somehow gun rights are always being narrowed flies in the face of reality. Such was true in the 70s/80s/90s, but things change.
 
Last edited:
Our rights are already enshrined in the Constitution, you can’t give me back what’s mine.

It is always important to remember the difference between “de facto” and “de jure.” Just because the most important piece of parchment in the country says something does not mean you get to take advantage of that in practice.
 
Last edited:
That document does not grant me these rights, my creator does. The document limits the Government and their collection of lawmakers huddled in their ivory towers.
 
I don't associate those people with the gun rights movement. Is this a gun "subculture" (your words), or are you describing homicidal criminals in general who might just as easily use a knife or a bomb or a truck?

Those were my words not Mr. Muggins, but any issue where he and I agree is probably noteworthy.

The fact that they might also just as easily use a knife or a bomb or a truck is exactly the point about mental illness. However the fact that that mass shooters seem to identify and find common cause with the very small minority of gun owners that actively work to connect firearms with an illegal projection of force and power is not something that serves the gun community as a whole, and one that if left unchecked *will*, sooner or later result in a restriction of those rights conferred by the Constitution. Not God, just the Constitution. We confuse the divine with the political at our peril.

Whether the basis is spiritual or political, every right we have comes with a commensurate obligation to wield that right responsibly with due regard to ensure our rights do not violate or infringe upon the rights and welfare of our fellow citizens and our fellow man. If that concept isn’t obvious you need to read both the relevant documents with a great deal more consideration.
 
Ohhh....ya done stepped into it now :D

I figured I was. But frankly I’m sick and tired on the 5 to 10 % on the extremes of any issue using the internet and social media as a megaphone to shout down everyone else.

The people portraying firearms as their path to masculinity or power over others do not represent responsible gun owners. Period. Full stop. Guns don’t kill gun rights, clueless (no matter how well meaning) and irresponsible gun owners kill gun rights.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top