Jump to content
Stonecoldchavez

Closing a Dangerous Loophole in Our Gun Laws‏ email

Recommended Posts

Suppose a wife seeks mental help because they are stressed out and scared that their spouse has beat them and threatened them again. Because she is stressed out and scared, should she be disarmed? 

 

Should she be forbidden from owning any weapons for 30 days? 

 

Should she be put on some state database "watch list"?

 

Should she have her firearms, permits, licenses and whatever turned into the state under some bogus "Public safety, health and welfare" bullshit excuse?

 

How would she protect herself if she got disarmed because she sought professional help and some 'agency' arbitrarily decides she needs to be disarmed ?

 

Given the political climate, could it come to this? 

 

Would that piece of paper from the court protect her?

 

Hell No

it can and would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

What do you propose to do in the 42 states where no background checks are required to enact your agenda?

 

 

mipafox:

 

The OP was only discussing potential new legislation in New Jersey and not in any other state.

Also, I do not have an "agenda".  I only offered my opinion, as others here are also doing.

 

I understand that nothing will be resolved here nor many opinions changed in this forum, but it can serve as a venue for a healthy discourse of different ideas and opinions.

 

AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

mipafox:

 

The OP was only discussing potential new legislation in New Jersey and not in any other state.

Also, I do not have an "agenda".  I only offered my opinion, as others here are also doing.

 

I understand that nothing will be resolved here nor many opinions changed in this forum, but it can serve as a venue for a healthy discourse of different ideas and opinions.

 

AVB-AMG

 

 

So it makes sense in Jersey but not elsewhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone else receive this? I recently received this from Ass. Greenwald.

 

"

Two years before the shooting, the shooter was declared mentally ill and ordered by a Virginia judge to undergo psychiatric examination. Despite being considered a danger to himself and to others, the state of Virginia did not report this court record to the FBI's National Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is the federal background check all firearms purchasers must pass. Because the information was not reported, he was later able to pass a background check and purchase weapons and carry out horrific acts of violence.

 

This is the reason for proposing this type of legislation.  The language in any proposed legislation in NJ must be very clear and concise, and avoid ambiguity, (something that I realize will be a diffucult challenge due to the influence of various interested lobby groups).  Specifically, it should address people who have been declared mentally ill by a certified medical Doctor and who has been ordered by a member of the Judicary in NJ to undergo psychiatric examination.  If the language in any proposed legislation is too general and open for interprettion, then many of the concerns suggested or indicated by Midwest, fipipa, DeerSlayer and others could become a real issue.  I for one do not want to abandon the attempt to provide a better way to deal with this speciic issue, by just dismissing it out of hand, and figure out if this proposed legislation is feasible with the appropriate language, or not.

 

AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the reason for proposing this type of legislation. The language in any proposed legislation in NJ must be very clear and concise, and avoid ambiguity, (something that I realize will be a diffucult challenge due to the influence of various interested lobby groups). Specifically, it should address people who have been declared mentally ill by a certified medical Doctor and who has been ordered by a member of the Judicary in NJ to undergo psychiatric examination. If the language in any proposed legislation is too general and open for interprettion, then many of the concerns suggested or indicated by Midwest, fipipa, DeerSlayer and others could become a real issue. I for one do not want to abandon the attempt to provide a better way to deal with this speciic issue, by just dismissing it out of hand, and figure out if this proposed legislation is feasible with the appropriate language, or not.

 

AVB-AMG

Believe me none of us want. "Crazies" getting their hands on firearms. It's a very difficult problem to address the issue without direct impedance on "non crazy" law abiding gun owners.

 

Here's my logical take on the situation at hand. This is my analogy, a drug addict has a drug of choice. The ultimate goal of the addict is to get high. If their drug of choice isn't readily available there's other drugs out there the addict will substitute with.

 

If guns aren't at hand for the crazies to kill with, there are other implements that are readily available.

 

It's a Shity world we live in, we're surrounded by the chance of death at every bend and corner along the road of life. Someone hell bent on doing harm to others, won't be hindered too badly by a law that deprives 99.9% of normal people of their rights. Just my take on the subject.

 

"Live long and prosper" the words of a logical figure.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the reason for proposing this type of legislation.  The language in any proposed legislation in NJ must be very clear and concise, and avoid ambiguity, (something that I realize will be a diffucult challenge due to the influence of various interested lobby groups).  Specifically, it should address people who have been declared mentally ill by a certified medical Doctor and who has been ordered by a member of the Judicary in NJ to undergo psychiatric examination.  If the language in any proposed legislation is too general and open for interprettion, then many of the concerns suggested or indicated by Midwest, fipipa, DeerSlayer and others could become a real issue.  I for one do not want to abandon the attempt to provide a better way to deal with this speciic issue, by just dismissing it out of hand, and figure out if this proposed legislation is feasible with the appropriate language, or not.

 

AVB-AMG

who gets to certify the doc? who gets to set the standards to certify the doc? who sets the standards for "crazy"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who gets to certify the doc? who gets to set the standards to certify the doc? who sets the standards for "crazy"?

 

1LtCAP:

 

I think you may be starting to "drive off the proverbial cliff" with that statement, by questioning existing proceedures, programs and laws, unless you meant that question in jest....

 

Our society already has accepted and instituted programs in place to allow people to become licensed doctors of medicine and psychiatry, licensed in NJ and every other state.

 

There is an elaborate medical definition for what is considered mentally ill.

If you are interested, look up: "The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders", published by the American Psychiatric Association.

If offers a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders.

 

Both of those issues have been addressed and accepted by the vast majority of Americans.

At some point, we all have to agree on what level and to what extent we are willing to take legislative and legal measures to help and protect each other, without infringing upon our right to privacy.  Determining exactly where that fine line is, is part of the challenge.  I am not saying it is easy but is worth exploring further....

 

AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't you do more good at Everytown for Gun Safety?

 

What is that supposed to mean....?

We all are having a good rational discussion on the OP's topic in a gun forum with everyone expressing their points of view and raising some interesting "what if" scenarios.

No need to be snarky....

 

Having said that, I was not aware of the group called "Everytown for Gun Safety" so I looked it up.

While they seem to have very good intentions I am concerned that some members in that group probably want to take things too far and what I consider to be extreme.  As you probably can tell, I am probably in the middle or have what can be considered a more moderate attitude to sane and sensible gun regulations.  Similar to what used to be referred to as moderate Republicans, and now a group that is almost extinct.

 

AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What is that supposed to mean....?

We all are having a good rational discussion on the OP's topic in a gun forum with everyone expressing their points of view and raising some interesting "what if" scenarios.

No need to be snarky....

 

Having said that, I was not aware of the group called "Everytown for Gun Safety" so I looked it up.

While they seem to have very good intentions I am concerned that some members in that group probably want to take things too far and what I consider to be extreme.  As you probably can tell, I am probably in the middle or have what can be considered a more moderate attitude to sane and sensible gun regulations.  Similar to what used to be referred to as moderate Republicans, and now a group that is almost extinct.

 

AVB-AMG

 

 

I'm not being snarky. I'm completely sincere. We are having a rationale discussion and you are obviously an enemy of the Second Amendment. If their side did not send you here, I do suggest you can get more done over there than you can here. They want the same things you want.

 

Your goal is to increase infringements of the civil rights of American citizens, and as you said, most of what they propose seems reasonable to you.

 

Honestly, I think you are a plant. But if not, I do think you can get more satisfaction by joining them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   

 

I'm not being snarky. I'm completely sincere. We are having a rationale discussion and you are obviously an enemy of the Second Amendment. If their side did not send you here, I do suggest you can get more done over there than you can here. They want the same things you want.

 

Your goal is to increase infringements of the civil rights of American citizens, and as you said, most of what they propose seems reasonable to you.

 

Honestly, I think you are a plant. But if not, I do think you can get more satisfaction by joining them.

 

Mipafox:

 

Wow…  You disagree with someone’s point of view and you sarcastically dismiss them with your nasty comments…   I find that to be very sad indeed!

 

1. Yes, you most certainly were and are being snarky.

2. I am not “an enemy of the Second Amendment”.  You have jumped to a conclusion that is wrong.

3. No one “sent me here”.  Do you really believe that is my motivation for stating my opinion and making my various comments?  Give me a break….

4. All I said in my initial response to the OP was that I find the intent of the proposed legislation in NJ to be reasonable.   Through the discussion in this thread, I recognize and accept the challenges of ensuring that the proper language is used in any forthcoming legislation in order to have the desired effect.  It may or may not be possible.

5.  I have already expressed my thoughts and concerns regarding "Everytown for Gun Safety", please re-read them.

 

I enjoy these thought provoking discussions and learn quite a bit with others, while sharing my thoughts and knowledge and opinions.  Unfortunately, some people in our society and also on this forum seem to imagine the world in a very simplistic way, viewing issues in a very “black and white” way.  They have the attitude that “you are either with us or against us”, leaving no room to consider any sort of “gray” area.  This rigidity leads to a very adamant and polarized perspective on life, our society and how they deal with others.  By most rational people, these type of people are considered quite paranoid.

 

I do not know you and you do not know me.  I am a gun owner and enthusiast who enjoys shooting at ranges, practicing to improve my accuracy, taking various gun self-defense and tactical courses and learning more about different firearms and discussing all of this with other gun enthusiasts.  I do not hide behind a screen name with total anonymity in my profile as you do.  I see that you have over 7,500 posts on this fourm and you do not want to tell anyone anything about yourself?  Why the secrecy?  Are you one of those extremely paranoid types?

I guess it may be too much to think that people will take a reasoned and civil approach to discussing topics, regardless of how passionate they may be about it, without their resorting to increasing negativity directed at someone with a different opinion. 

 

Rather than descending any further downhill and engaging in a pissing match, I suggest that we just respectfully agree to disagree on this issue and leave it at that.

 

AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe me none of us want. "Crazies" getting their hands on firearms. It's a very difficult problem to address the issue without direct impedance on "non crazy" law abiding gun owners. Here's my logical take on the situation at hand. This is my analogy, a drug addict has a drug of choice. The ultimate goal of the addict is to get high. If their drug of choice isn't readily available there's other drugs out there the addict will substitute with. If guns aren't at hand for the crazies to kill with, there are other implements that are readily available. It's a Shity world we live in, we're surrounded by the chance of death at every bend and corner along the road of life. Someone hell bent on doing harm to others, won't be hindered too badly by a law that deprives 99.9% of normal people of their rights. Just my take on the subject. "Live long and prosper" the words of a logical figure.

True, you will never stop the crazies from doing crazy stuff. BUT if you stop them from doing it with legally purchased guns it will take the focus off the normal gun owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, you will never stop the crazies from doing crazy stuff. BUT if you stop them from doing it with legally purchased guns it will take the focus off the normal gun owners.

What's the actual ratio of legally aquired guns that are used to kill at the hands of the mentally unstable in this country? I still don't think it's ok to trample on constitutional rights in the name of "public safety". They will still blame it on legally purchased guns, even if they're committing the crime with illegal guns. They will always shift the blame to the object instead of the society that creates the problem in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mipafox:

 

Wow…  You disagree with someone’s point of view and you sarcastically dismiss them with your nasty comments…   I find that to be very sad indeed!

 

 

 

How come if you disagree with MY point of view that makes me sarcastic and nasty?

 

Sorry, it doesn't work that way around here. I'm not sarcastic, and I'm not being nasty.

 

You support people getting permission from the federal government to own firearms. That is an extreme stance and it is an infringement on our rights. You support EXPANDING gun control, especially in this respect.

 

If you think pretending your feelings are hurt will make me the bad guy, you need to grow up and drop the liberal bullshit card and act like an adult in an adult conversation. I haven't said a single thing that is unreasonable, just things you don't agree with. Those days are over, bro. You can't disparage your way out of dissent anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They will always shift the blame to the object instead of the society that creates the problem in the first place.

I don't hear too much about trying to ban non-firearms, but here's a topic that supports your statement:  http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/72109-no-firearms-used-can-society-admit-that-its-not-firearms-that-are-the-problem-but-violence-itself-that-is-the-problem/?p=910347

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think pretending your feelings are hurt will make me the bad guy, you need to grow up and drop the liberal bullshit card and act like an adult in an adult conversation. I haven't said a single thing that is unreasonable, just things you don't agree with. Those days are over, bro. You can't disparage your way out of dissent anymore.

 

mipafox:

 

I could respond in kind to your negaitve escalation, but I will repeat what I said:

Rather than descending any further downhill and engaging in a pissing match, acting as the adults we are, I suggest that we just respectfully agree to disagree on this issue and leave it at that....

:boxing:

 

AVB-AMG

 

130722_daily-cartoon-tuesday_p465-guns-v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1LtCAP:

 

I think you may be starting to "drive off the proverbial cliff" with that statement, by questioning existing proceedures, programs and laws, unless you meant that question in jest....

 

Our society already has accepted and instituted programs in place to allow people to become licensed doctors of medicine and psychiatry, licensed in NJ and every other state.

 

There is an elaborate medical definition for what is considered mentally ill.

If you are interested, look up: "The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders", published by the American Psychiatric Association.

If offers a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders.

 

Both of those issues have been addressed and accepted by the vast majority of Americans.

At some point, we all have to agree on what level and to what extent we are willing to take legislative and legal measures to help and protect each other, without infringing upon our right to privacy.  Determining exactly where that fine line is, is part of the challenge.  I am not saying it is easy but is worth exploring further....

 

AVB-AMG

NO. i asked that question in all seriousness. there's an article out there somewhere detailing how shrinks(i dunno how to spell their professional name) can pretty much define anyone as mentally deficient, and there isn't any set standards.

 

 if we don't even go there.......look to our justifiable need to see where the mental screening thing will end up.

 

 like i said before......being gay, liking guns, liking racing, liking hunting, liking boxing, liking women in high heels and leather or latex......those ALL can be used to determine one to be mentally deficient........yet not a single one of those makes you a danger to yourself or anyone else. letting them set a standard for us to exercise our rights isn't just a slippery slope......it is a teflon coated icy slope. even the fact that right now, as the law stands, people can be refused.....or at least horribly delayed simply at the whim of the chief of police.

 

 we're much better off having our freedoms with some risk, then to give up any of our freedoms in hopes of eliminating this risk.

 

 i'll add a couple things. while the news media makes it look like mentally unstable people are running amok killing people......in just a couple years, the airbus line of aircraft has taken more lives than mentally unstable people with guns. people with cars. people with household products. etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NO. i asked that question in all seriousness. there's an article out there somewhere detailing how shrinks(i dunno how to spell their professional name) can pretty much define anyone as mentally deficient, and there isn't any set standards.

 

 if we don't even go there.......look to our justifiable need to see where the mental screening thing will end up.

 

 like i said before......being gay, liking guns, liking racing, liking hunting, liking boxing, liking women in high heels and leather or latex......those ALL can be used to determine one to be mentally deficient........yet not a single one of those makes you a danger to yourself or anyone else. letting them set a standard for us to exercise our rights isn't just a slippery slope......it is a teflon coated icy slope. even the fact that right now, as the law stands, people can be refused.....or at least horribly delayed simply at the whim of the chief of police.

 

 we're much better off having our freedoms with some risk, then to give up any of our freedoms in hopes of eliminating this risk.

 

 i'll add a couple things. while the news media makes it look like mentally unstable people are running amok killing people......in just a couple years, the airbus line of aircraft has taken more lives than mentally unstable people with guns. people with cars. people with household products. etc.

What the heck do any one of the above in red have to do with mental deficiency???  I must be a very sick pup as I like ALL those things!!!!  liking women in high heels and leather!!! Bring on the straight jacket

because I am guilty as hell on that part!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the heck do any one of the above in red have to do with mental deficiency???  I must be a very sick pup as I like ALL those things!!!!  liking women in high heels and leather!!! Bring on the straight jacket

because I am guilty as hell on that part!!

well yeaaaa.....:D

 

 not a single one of those things you highlighted has anything to do with being mentally deficient.....but the powers that be, and shrinks can twist any on them to make one appear as such.

 

 shit........google irving klaw. i doubt i'm the only person here that knows who he was........they tore him apart due to what he did......and he didn't do anything wrong, or even half as bad as what we see today.

 

 BTW......there's such a thing as people that enjoy straight jackets too, lololol. i'm sure a shrink would have a field day with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you give the government a choice to to allow or deny an activity they do not particularly want it's subjects to partake in without repercussions , the answer is almost always no. Add to that trying to use government defined mental health professionals who's only interest is saving their own butts from being sued, not being harassed by said govt, and making $, what do you think their safe answer would be?

 

Just more gun control under guise of "safety" .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think it is time for this wall-o-text again. some may need to read it. it is not mine.

 

If I asked you if you had rights, what would you say?  Chances are you would say “yes”.

And if I asked you what rights you had, what would you say?  The popular answers usually are the right to free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, the right against unreasonable search and seizure…

But what if I asked you “What is a right?”

Now that is a question that we don’t usually think about.  We usually stop at saying that we have them but don’t go into what a right really is.  But when it comes to people who do want to take your rights away, well, I can assure you, they have thought about it, and you should too.

When we say that we have a right, what we really should be doing is expressing that statement in its longer form.  What we should say is “We have a right to be left alone”.

When the government and the individual agree about something, well then there isn’t a problem, everyone is happy.  Where rights come into play is when the government and the individual disagree; where the government wants one thing, and the individual says “No thanks”.  Respecting individual rights is the hallmark of a free republic.

A right is something that you as an individual own.  A privilege, on the other hand, is something that another entity owns who then grants you the ability to do something.   A privilege definitely can be taken away if it is owned by someone other than you because they own it and you don’t.

What if someone wanted to get rid of your rights?  How would they do that?

One way is by physical force.  Someone kicking down your door and killing you would take away your right to live.  But that is a kind of obvious way to do it.

A more subtle way would be to get you to treat your rights as privileges.

Let me give you an example.  Since the right to keep and bear arms has been in the news a lot lately, let’s use that as an example, but we could use another right like freedom of speech just as easily.

One of the suggested solutions put forth as a way to stop mass shootings has been to try and limit the capacity of magazines.  Frequently, gun control proponents will ask the question to an individual “Why do you need a magazine larger than 10 rounds?  Isn’t that a reasonable restriction?”

At this point, someone who supports the right to keep and bear arms is faced with a choice.  Do they justify why they need the magazine of a particular size?  Do they say something else?

What happens if you agree that you don’t need a particular size of a magazine?  You’ll hear this a lot if you listen to some gun owners who call in to radio shows or even in normal day to day discussion who will agree with the idea of a magazine capacity limit as not being a problem.  You still have your right to keep and bear arms, don’t you?

Nope.  It’s essentially gone at that point as you have just consented to letting that other party have free reign to infringe upon your right.   Whenever you agree to an arbitrary limit set by someone else or some other entity, you have now set a precedent and included them in who gets to determine what you own.

When someone makes the statement that you don’t need something and it is a “reasonable” restriction on why you shouldn’t have it, what they are really doing is asking you to accept their false premise that your right is a privilege, and to allow yourself to be subjected to whatever arbitrary limit they or some other party may want. Their argument gets you to consent to get rid of something you already own, that being one of your rights.

If you accept their false premise, then tomorrow, when they decide their arbitrary 10 round limit is too high and insist on 9, or, an 8, or a 7 round magazine limit (which is exactly what happened in New York) you can’t argue with them since philosophically their arbitrary argument for a 10 round magazine is the same as for a 7.

Here is the kicker: They essentially have no argument; they just win by default because when you consent to an arbitrary limit, you lose.

Even worse, they will sell you on the virtue of “compromise”, “let’s meet in the middle ground” they frequently will say.  But when you compromise on your rights, you don’t get to keep a percentage of your rights.  Your rights are binary. You either have them, or you don’t.  You either make the decisions yourself, or you yield them and they make them for you.

When someone tries asks you to compromise on your rights, you are coming to the table with total ownership of something (namely whatever right you are talking about) and they come to the table with nothing.  A compromise implies something from one party and something from the other.  Well, when there is total ownership on one side and nothing on the other, if you compromise the only possible outcome is a loss for you and a win for them.

The correct answer is that need has absolutely nothing to do with it.  You have the right to be left alone when it comes to keeping and bearing of arms.  You have the right to say no.  If someone wants to strip you of your rights, then that is where due process comes in where they make an allegation and you get to challenge their claim.

The framers of the second amendment understood the concept of rights.  Let’s take a look at the second amendment:

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

Notice that there is no reference to a “privilege” or “need”, but there is a specific reference to a “right”.  Implied in the wording is how the already existing right owned by the people shall not be infringed.

Here is the scary part of all this.  If a right has been turned into a privilege, the owner can pull the privilege at their discretion.  What happens when the privilege is revoked?  Well, if the owner of the privilege is the state, that means that if you want to do something that you in fact have the right to do but the state says no, then you now have committed a crime.

I want you to remember this statement:

First it is a right, then it is a privilege, then it is a crime.

Always make it a point to protect your rights, because once they are privileges, they are gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...