NRA backs new BGC Bill

[johngalt]

That's all I'd need to know.

They don't like it because it doesn't go far enough. Hardly a good reason to support it.

I have lots of problems with it:
* Where do they get the information? Is your doctor going to be coerced into finking on you?
* What due process is there?
* Who gets to decide that someone's rights are to be denied?

I think that it is appalling that people seeking help can or will result in their civil rights being denied, possibly without any due process or appeal. Penalizing people for seeking help will not improve the situation.

 

[redlevel]

They don't like it because it doesn't go far enough. Hardly a good reason to support it.

I have lots of problems with it:
* Where do they get the information? Is your doctor going to be coerced into finking on you?
* What due process is there?
* Who gets to decide that someone's rights are to be denied?

I think that it is appalling that people seeking help can or will result in their civil rights being denied, possibly without any due process or appeal. Penalizing people for seeking help will not improve the situation.

Did you bother to read the article I linked to? The Cornyn/NRA Bill addresses most of these issues. Especially the due process/appeal concerns.

 

[younggun22]

NRA-ILA Article that outlines what the bill does

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150805/nra-supports-legislation-to-stop-obama-administration-from-denying-constitutional-rights-of-millions-of-veterans-and-social-security-recipients

 

[BC38]

How about reaffirming that gun ownership is a right, not a privilege for which I must prove myself worthy by subjecting myself to background checks and examinations by government agents?

Of course it is a right. But do those who are mentally ill and homicidal have that right?

Every time some nut case shoots up a school or a church we all say that the gun isn't the culprit and therefore WE shouldn't have our rights restricted, and I agree with that 100%. But then most of us also agree that "the system" failed to keep the gun out the mental defective's hands.

If "the system" doesn't change we will continue to have MORE mental defectives shooting up groups of innocents and MORE gun control imposed on all of us.

So what do we do? Make no effort to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and let the slaughter continue? Do nothing and let enough kids and church members get mowed down for the anti-gun folks to succeed in getting ALL our gun rights taken away?

My feeling on this is that if the NRA is for it and the Brady bunch is against it, then it must be at least worth considering, and shouldn't be just dismissed out of hand.

 

[johngalt]

Did you bother to read the article I linked to? The Cornyn/NRA Bill addresses most of these issues. Especially the due process/appeal concerns.

I saw the first linked article, I didn't see yours at first. Yours looks more positive, but I'm still not convinced.

It reads like a 'guilty until proven innocent' situation to me. Does the state have the burden of proving that the person should be added, or does the person have the burden to prove that he should not?

It still doesn't explain where the information comes from. I am definitely opposed to turning health care providers into rats.

 

[johngalt]

Of course it is a right. But do those who are mentally ill and homicidal have that right?

Every time some nut case shoots up a school or a church we all say that the gun isn't the culprit and therefore WE shouldn't have our rights restricted, and I agree with that 100%. But then most of us also agree that "the system" failed to keep the gun out the mental defective's hands.

If "the system" doesn't change we will continue to have MORE mental defectives shooting up groups of innocents and MORE gun control imposed on all of us.

So what do we do? Make no effort to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and let the slaughter continue? Do nothing and let enough kids and church members get mowed down for the anti-gun folks to succeed in getting ALL our gun rights taken away?

My feeling on this is that if the NRA is for it and the Brady bunch is against it, then it must be at least worth considering, and shouldn't be just dismissed out of hand.

When you let mere mortals become the adjudicator of who can have what rights, they are no longer rights, but privileges. Rights are called rights for a reason.

Living in a free society has risks. I personally am not willing to forfeit my rights for the promise of 'safety'. I am willing to bet that I will not be mowed down by mental case, and forfeiting my rights in exchange for a privilege is a poor trade.

I said the same thing in the past, when the big discussion on universal background checks came up. The big cry was 'how do we keep the guns out of felons hands'? Nothing! I am willing to take the risk.

 

[younggun22]

When you let mere mortals become the adjudicator of who can have what rights, they are no longer rights, but privileges. Rights are called rights for a reason.

Living in a free society has risks. I personally am not willing to forfeit my rights for the promise of 'safety'. I am willing to bet that I will not be mowed down by mental case, and forfeiting my rights in exchange for a privilege is a poor trade.

I said the same thing in the past, when the big discussion on universal background checks came up. The big cry was 'how do we keep the guns out of felons hands'? Nothing! I am willing to take the risk.

Why have any laws at all? Let just settle all of societies problems in the THUNDER DOME!!!

 

[BC38]

When you let mere mortals become the adjudicator of who can have what rights, they are no longer rights, but privileges. Rights are called rights for a reason.

Living in a free society has risks. I personally am not willing to forfeit my rights for the promise of 'safety'. I am willing to bet that I will not be mowed down by mental case, and forfeiting my rights in exchange for a privilege is a poor trade.

I said the same thing in the past, when the big discussion on universal background checks came up. The big cry was 'how do we keep the guns out of felons hands'? Nothing! I am willing to take the risk.

So then you believe that convicted violent felons should be able to legally purchase handguns too? If we prohibit them doing so we're "adjudicating their rights".

While we're at it, what business does government have preventing felons from exercising their right to move about freely? We need to do away with prisons too. Otherwise we're infringing on their rights - aren't we?

 

[redlevel]

So then you believe that convicted violent felons should be able to legally purchase handguns too? If we prohibit them doing so we're "adjudicating their rights".

While we're at it, what business does government have preventing felons from exercising their right to move about freely? We need to do away with prisons too. Otherwise we're infringing on their rights - aren't we?

You are putting words in John Galt's mouth. I don't believe he said, or even implied any of those things.

There is a difference in restricting the rights of one who has proven himself a violater, and restricting the rights of a law abiding citizen. Restricting the rights of a person who, according to some nebulous governmental entity, just might be a threat is very different from restricting the rights of one who has proven such.

 

[younggun22]

You are putting words in John Galt's mouth. I don't believe he said, or even implied any of those things.

There is a difference in restricting the rights of one who has proven himself a violater, and restricting the rights of a law abiding citizen. Restricting the rights of a person who, according to some nebulous governmental entity, just might be a threat is very different from restricting the rights of one who has proven such.

I think the main problem here is a lack of reading comprehension or understanding of the current laws.

No part of the proposed bill bill expands background checks.

 

[redlevel]

Living in a free society has risks. I personally am not willing to forfeit my rights for the promise of 'safety'. I am willing to bet that I will not be mowed down by mental case, and forfeiting my rights in exchange for a privilege is a poor trade.

I probably don't hold quite as much of a libertarian view as you, but real close.

We live in a relatively free society. We pay a price for it sometimes. Like you, johngalt, I am willing to pay that price for the freedom we have. We could indeed make things safer. We could roll back mental health reforms to 50-60 years ago and people like Rusty Houser, Adam Lanza, and a host of others would probably have been in an institution-warehoused, if you will-before they finally went completely berserk. Today, they walk among us rather than spending their days sedated in a padded room. We could repeal the 2nd, 4th, and parts of the 5th Amendments and "take up" probably 50% to 75% of the guns in private hands.

These things have been done in some countries. The citizens of some of these countries have little to fear about gun violence from their fellow citizens, but much to fear from their governments.

 

[BC38]

You are putting words in John Galt's mouth. I don't believe he said, or even implied any of those things.

There is a difference in restricting the rights of one who has proven himself a violater, and restricting the rights of a law abiding citizen. Restricting the rights of a person who, according to some nebulous governmental entity, just might be a threat is very different from restricting the rights of one who has proven such.

Noooo, I am not putting words in anyone's mouth - I am asking questions and taking his statements to the next logical step. He unequivocally stated that when "mere mortals become the adjudicator of who can have what rights, they are no longer rights, but privileges" which certainly sounds like an argument that "mere mortals" should NEVER be able to restrict the rights of anyone. I was and am questioning if that is what he meant.

I agree completely that someone who has committed a crime is different from someone who has "only" been judged to be a danger to themselves or others. But here's a hypothetical for you. Here in Washington State, if a child molester or a rapist has served their sentence, but the prison mental health professionals evaluate them and determine they are still a risk to re-offend, they can continue to be incarcerated indefinitely.

Right or wrong? Should they be released to prey on other women or children - even though they have done their time for the crimes they have committed? Or should we be able to continue to keep them locked up based on the assessment of their probability to re-offend made by mental health professionals? If you say we should let them go, are you OK with them moving in next door to you?

And if those same mental health professionals say someone is a danger to themselves or others, do you still feel they should still be allowed to exercise their gun rights without having to prove they aren't a danger? I'm as pro 2nd amendment as anyone, I've written numerous papers on the subject.

However, I'm starting to come to the belief that there are cases where rights can justifiably be subject to restrictions, when a person is unable to exercise them responsibly, and therefore endangers or infringes on the rights of others. And that applies to 2nd amendment rights too.

Should the suspension of a person's second amendment rights be something easily accomplished on the word of just one mental health professional? No, I don't think so. Should such a suspension be easily reversible if a person can present evidence of their mental competency? Yes, I believe so. But I do not think we should have to wait to do something about someone like the nutbar in NC who shot and killed 9 people either - especially when his predisposition to do so was well documented.

Just like shouting FIRE in a crowded theater isn't protected freedom of speech, and my freedom to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose.

 

[johngalt]

Noooo, I am not putting words in anyone's mouth - I am asking questions and taking his statements to the next logical step. He unequivocally stated that when "mere mortals become the adjudicator of who can have what rights, they are no longer rights, but privileges" which certainly sounds like an argument that "mere mortals" should NEVER be able to restrict the rights of anyone. I was and am questioning if that is what he meant.

I agree completely that someone who has committed a crime is different from someone who has "only" been judged to be a danger to themselves or others. But here's a hypothetical for you. Here in Washington State, if a child molester or a rapist has served their sentence, but the prison mental health professionals evaluate them and determine they are still a risk to re-offend, they can continue to be incarcerated indefinitely.

Right or wrong? Should they be released to prey on other women or children - even though they have done their time for the crimes they have committed? Or should we be able to continue to keep them locked up based on the assessment of their probability to re-offend made by mental health professionals? If you say we should let them go, are you OK with them moving in next door to you?

And if those same mental health professionals say someone is a danger to themselves or others, do you still feel they should still be allowed to exercise their gun rights without having to prove they aren't a danger? I'm as pro 2nd amendment as anyone, I've written numerous papers on the subject.

However, I'm starting to come to the belief that there are cases where rights can justifiably be subject to restrictions, when a person is unable to exercise them responsibly, and therefore endangers or infringes on the rights of others. And that applies to 2nd amendment rights too.

Should the suspension of a person's second amendment rights be something easily accomplished on the word of just one mental health professional? No, I don't think so. Should such a suspension be easily reversible if a person can present evidence of their mental competency? Yes, I believe so. But I do not think we should have to wait to do something about someone like the nutbar in NC who shot and killed 9 people either - especially when his predisposition to do so was well documented.

Just like shouting FIRE in a crowded theater isn't protected freedom of speech, and my freedom to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose.

Rights don't exist in a vacuum, they also have corresponding responsibilities. In general, the responsibility of everyone claiming to have rights is to respect the rights of everyone else. You can't have one without the other, they are two sides of the same coin.

A criminal who breaks the law (by rejecting his responsibility to respect his victim's rights) also forfeits his own rights. His rights aren't being adjudicated away by mere mortals, he forfeited them himself with his own actions. So yes, criminals can be imprisoned.

I don't know how the law in Washington is worded, but there used to be a principle that citizens are entitled to know, what is illegal and the corresponding penalties, without any ambiguity. if a sex offender is sentenced to xx years, then it should be xx years. If sounds like the actual intent is for the sentence to be life in prison, with the possibility of parole after xx years if he can prove himself worthy. If this is the intent, the law should be rewritten to state such.

Shouting fire in a crowded theater is one of example of a 'reasonable restriction' of a person 1st amendment right. An example of a reasonable restriction of a 2nd amendment right is laws restricting the discharge of firearms in the city limits because it can damage property and injure people.

What right of yours is being violated by the mere possession of a firearm by another person?

 

[BC38]

Rights don't exist in a vacuum, they also have corresponding responsibilities. In general, the responsibility of everyone claiming to have rights is to respect the rights of everyone else. You can't have one without the other, they are two sides of the same coin.

A criminal who breaks the law (by rejecting his responsibility to respect his victim's rights) also forfeits his own rights. His rights aren't being adjudicated away by mere mortals, he forfeited them himself with his own actions. So yes, criminals can be imprisoned.

I don't know how the law in Washington is worded, but there used to be a principle that citizens are entitled to know, what is illegal and the corresponding penalties, without any ambiguity. if a sex offender is sentenced to xx years, then it should be xx years. If sounds like the actual intent is for the sentence to be life in prison, with the possibility of parole after xx years if he can prove himself worthy. If this is the intent, the law should be rewritten to state such.

Shouting fire in a crowded theater is one of example of a 'reasonable restriction' of a person 1st amendment right. An example of a reasonable restriction of a 2nd amendment right is laws restricting the discharge of firearms in the city limits because it can damage property and injure people.

What right of yours is being violated by the mere possession of a firearm by another person?

That would be the right to LIFE of the 9 people shot to death by the DIAGNOSED mentally ill individual in the Charleston church.

Others here have said that they are willing to accept the risk that something like this will happen to them or theirs. There is certainly a good chance that if asked, at least some of those people who were killed (or their families) would have said the same thing. Do you still think they would still say the same thing now - if they could?

It's easy to say that the risks are acceptable - until you come up on the wrong side of the odds...

 

[johngalt]

That would be the right to LIFE of the 9 people shot to death by the DIAGNOSED mentally ill individual in the Charleston church.

Their rights were violated by being shot to death, not by the mere possession of the firearm. That is the same logic the antis use to justify disarming all of us.

 

[johngalt]

I probably don't hold quite as much of a libertarian view as you, but real close.

We live in a relatively free society. We pay a price for it sometimes. Like you, johngalt, I am willing to pay that price for the freedom we have. We could indeed make things safer. We could roll back mental health reforms to 50-60 years ago and people like Rusty Houser, Adam Lanza, and a host of others would probably have been in an institution-warehoused, if you will-before they finally went completely berserk. Today, they walk among us rather than spending their days sedated in a padded room. We could repeal the 2nd, 4th, and parts of the 5th Amendments and "take up" probably 50% to 75% of the guns in private hands.

These things have been done in some countries. The citizens of some of these countries have little to fear about gun violence from their fellow citizens, but much to fear from their governments.

The mental health issue is a tough one. A free society assumes its citizens know what their rights and responsibilities are. When you find an individual who doesn't, then what do you do?

Since man has no authority to strip another of his rights, the individual can only lose his rights by forfeiting them through his own actions, how can mental illness alone, absent any other action, take away his rights? I'm not convinced it can.

And suppose it did, and a mentally ill person was found to be in possession of a firearm. Is justice served by charging this person as a criminal? Is mental illness a crime?

 

[BC38]

The mental health issue is a tough one. A free society assumes its citizens know what their rights and responsibilities are. When you find an individual who doesn't, then what do you do?

Since man has no authority to strip another of his rights, the individual can only lose his rights by forfeiting them through his own actions, how can mental illness alone, absent any other action, take away his rights? I'm not convinced it can.

And suppose it did, and a mentally ill person was found to be in possession of a firearm. Is justice served by charging this person as a criminal? Is mental illness a crime?

Nobody is advocating making mental illness a criminal offense - only a condition that prohibits the possession of a means to harm or kill large numbers of people. If someone has had their gun rights restricted for mental illness and THEN is found in possession of a firearm, then yes, I feel that should be viewed as a crime. Something along the lines of violating a court order. Just like a situation where an estranged spouse or someone else gets a restraining order against you - even if it is unjustified and obtained by them telling lies about your and your behavior - you still have to abide by it until you get it overturned.

Why don't we allow children or those with mental disabilities to purchase and possess firearms? Because their mental abilities - specifically their judgement - is not developed enough for them to exercise responsible use of firearms. Likewise the person who is judged mentally incompetent and a danger to themselves or others should also be restricted from possessing firearms, and for the exact same reason.

Again, I'm NOT saying that this right should be restricted on a whim, or even on the say-so of just one mental health professional. I think there should also be a high standard for the burden of proof, but I think there should be some sort of a judiciary proceeding - subject to proper oversight and review - where a mentally incompetent person who is a danger to themselves or others can be restricted from legal purchase and possession of firearms. Just like the head case in Charleston.

What's the alternative? Let incidents like Charleston, and Sandy Hook, and Columbine, etc. continue happening until the anti-gun folks are able to convince the non-gun owning public to outlaw firearms possession for EVERYONE? It just seems to me there has to be something that falls somewhere between letting the mentally have the means to kill mass numbers of people and restricting the gun rights of the honest competent ordinary person. I believe that it doesn't have to be all one way or the other.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

It's easy to say that the risks are acceptable - until you come up on the wrong side of the odds...

It's also easy to overthink these type do-gooder things.

Life wasn't so bad in America prior to 1968 and all the FFL government control to follow. The government has a lot of laws designed to keep guns from certain people. It doesn't work very well other than to burden the law abiding. Enough.

 

[Old TexMex]

Nobody is advocating making mental illness a criminal offense - only a condition that prohibits the possession of a means to harm or kill large numbers of people. If someone has had their gun rights restricted for mental illness and THEN is found in possession of a firearm, then yes, I feel that should be viewed as a crime. Something along the lines of violating a court order. Just like a situation where an estranged spouse or someone else gets a restraining order against you - even if it is unjustified and obtained by them telling lies about your and your behavior - you still have to abide by it until you get it overturned.

Why don't we allow children or those with mental disabilities to purchase and possess firearms? Because their mental abilities - specifically their judgement - is not developed enough for them to exercise responsible use of firearms. Likewise the person who is judged mentally incompetent and a danger to themselves or others should also be restricted from possessing firearms, and for the exact same reason.

Again, I'm NOT saying that this right should be restricted on a whim, or even on the say-so of just one mental health professional. I think there should also be a high standard for the burden of proof, but I think there should be some sort of a judiciary proceeding - subject to proper oversight and review - where a mentally incompetent person who is a danger to themselves or others can be restricted from legal purchase and possession of firearms. Just like the head case in Charleston.

What's the alternative? Let incidents like Charleston, and Sandy Hook, and Columbine, etc. continue happening until the anti-gun folks are able to convince the non-gun owning public to outlaw firearms possession for EVERYONE? It just seems to me there has to be something that falls somewhere between letting the mentally have the means to kill mass numbers of people and restricting the gun rights of the honest competent ordinary person. I believe that it doesn't have to be all one way or the other.

The camels nose enters the tent.

 

[BC38]

It's also easy to overthink these type do-gooder things.

Life wasn't so bad in America prior to 1968 and all the FFL government control to follow. The government has a lot of laws designed to keep guns from certain people. It doesn't work very well other than to burden the law abiding. Enough.

I understand what you're saying Phil, but it's an entirely different world now than it was in 1968. And the increase in the level of gun control is only one of the differences - and in terms of this discussion, probably has the least influence on this problem. Somehow I can't quite see how you are connecting the dots between the government regulation of firearms and the escalating frequency of slaughter of innocents by mentally disturbed individuals.

One thing that is different that I see as a significantly contributing factor is the explicit gore and violence in movies, on TV, and in video games. These influences have twisted the minds of a couple of whole generations of our youth. They have seen so many depictions of people being killed that they have no empathy, and no sense of horror at seeing detailed portrayals of other people being abused and murdered in the most gruesome ways imaginable. They have been conditioned NOT to have the normal reactions of revulsion and being repulsed by these images, and instead to just accept them as normal and OK.

Is it any wonder a certain percentage of them become so sick in the head that they actually go out and DO the same things in the real world that they have seen done over and over and over on TV and in movies - or worse yet have actually trained themselves on screen to do as part of a video "game"?

But then now we're getting into the root causes of their madness, and veering away from the question of whether or not these insane individuals should have their 2nd amendment rights restricted. I've become convinced that they should if a sufficient burden of proof can be satisfied. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If they behave like a dangerous psychopath and talk like a dangerous psychopath and are diagnosed as a dangerous psychopath then we need to treat them like a dangerous psychopath and do what we can to keep guns away from them.

How does that burden the rest of us who haven't been diagnosed as being dangerous psychopaths?