• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The NRA is dead to me.

mnrobitaille

mnrobitaille

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
374
Location
Kahlotus, WA
Push for stricter background checks

Giffords & Kelly pushing for Gun Control Reform

Even after being shot in the head, Gabby Giffords & her husband, Mark Kelly, according to the article are 2nd Amendment proponents. They are trying to get stricter background checks passed through to eliminate those with mental health issues for obtaining firearms.
 
OC Freedom

OC Freedom

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2014
Messages
646
Location
ADA County, ID
mnrobitaille said:
Giffords & Kelly pushing for Gun Control Reform

Even after being shot in the head, Gabby Giffords & her husband, Mark Kelly, according to the article are 2nd Amendment proponents. They are trying to get stricter background checks passed through to eliminate those with mental health issues for obtaining firearms.
Click to expand...

If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, well ya know how the saying goes.
 
twoskinsonemanns

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
How about an indication of any good this would do. How about some stats on people who passed back ground checks, and committed crimes with the firearm they purchased that would have been stopped by this law?
 
B

beebobby

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
847
Location
, ,
Can anyone name one law that has completely stopped people from committing the offense that the law prohibits?

We have laws against embezzlement and some people continue to embezzle. We have laws against rape and some people experience the trauma of rape anyway. We have laws against driving without a license or without insurance and some people do it anyway. We have laws against everything from arson to zoning infractions and those crimes get committed anyway. The "criminals will do it anyway" argument is one of the top three galactic dumbphuck arguments made in rejection of gun safety laws. By such logic, we should not have laws prohibiting anything.
 
sudden valley gunner

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
beebobby said:
Can anyone name one law that has completely stopped people from committing the offense that the law prohibits?

We have laws against embezzlement and some people continue to embezzle. We have laws against rape and some people experience the trauma of rape anyway. We have laws against driving without a license or without insurance and some people do it anyway. We have laws against everything from arson to zoning infractions and those crimes get committed anyway. The "criminals will do it anyway" argument is one of the top three galactic dumbphuck arguments made in rejection of gun safety laws. By such logic, we should not have laws prohibiting anything.
Click to expand...

Man made laws with man made enforcement are horrible.
 
WalkingWolf

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
beebobby said:
Can anyone name one law that has completely stopped people from committing the offense that the law prohibits?

We have laws against embezzlement and some people continue to embezzle. We have laws against rape and some people experience the trauma of rape anyway. We have laws against driving without a license or without insurance and some people do it anyway. We have laws against everything from arson to zoning infractions and those crimes get committed anyway. The "criminals will do it anyway" argument is one of the top three galactic dumbphuck arguments made in rejection of gun safety laws. By such logic, we should not have laws prohibiting anything.
Click to expand...

So have any of these proactive laws brought us safety? Seems we could save billions by making being a criminal illegal, and all crime would stop. Ohhhh wait it is illegal to be criminal, and they still commit crime.
 
stealthyeliminator

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
beebobby said:
Can anyone name one law that has completely stopped people from committing the offense that the law prohibits?

We have laws against embezzlement and some people continue to embezzle. We have laws against rape and some people experience the trauma of rape anyway. We have laws against driving without a license or without insurance and some people do it anyway. We have laws against everything from arson to zoning infractions and those crimes get committed anyway. The "criminals will do it anyway" argument is one of the top three galactic dumbphuck arguments made in rejection of gun safety laws. By such logic, we should not have laws prohibiting anything.
Click to expand...

I think this is a good point.

Perhaps you could still bring up the ineffectiveness of the law in some cases as a counterpoint to someone arguing that the benefit (less crime) outweights the cost (less freedom), by showing that the benefit (less crime) is faux.
 
B

beebobby

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
847
Location
, ,
I just think that we could do more to prevent folks with a history of mental illness or violence from obtaining a firearm legally.
 
acmariner99

acmariner99

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
655
Location
Renton, Wa
beebobby said:
Can anyone name one law that has completely stopped people from committing the offense that the law prohibits?

We have laws against embezzlement and some people continue to embezzle. We have laws against rape and some people experience the trauma of rape anyway. We have laws against driving without a license or without insurance and some people do it anyway. We have laws against everything from arson to zoning infractions and those crimes get committed anyway. The "criminals will do it anyway" argument is one of the top three galactic dumbphuck arguments made in rejection of gun safety laws. By such logic, we should not have laws prohibiting anything.
Click to expand...

The law never prevents anything. It provides a system for when a person against the interests of another person (or society). I forget the Latin base, but there are laws which are in place for when a person is actually victimized (embezzlement, rape, murder, theft) or gains an unfair advantage (insider trading) vs. laws that exist just because (permit laws, zoning laws. The first group is important because it gives those victims a means to seek redress while giving the accused a means to defend their actions (or not). The later is more about what society wants and the standards it wants to impose on everyone participating in that society.
 
WalkingWolf

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
beebobby said:
I just think that we could do more to prevent folks with a history of mental illness or violence from obtaining a firearm legally.
Click to expand...

Unless you plan on living with them, and watching them 24/7 we/you are not going to prevent a thing. Laws only affect the law abiding, and those capable of understanding the law.
 
Griz

Griz

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2010
Messages
315
Location
, ,
Freedom1Man said:
Who decides what a mental illness is?

Who gets to decide that you have no rights once you've been released from jail/prison?
Click to expand...

That's exactly it. Psychology is, at best, a pseudo science, with many variables that can't be quantified, except through measuring the "norm" of other people. And that is always changing, too.

The cures are drugs that may or may not screw up your brain chemistry even further, talking it out of your system with a complete stranger, or surgery for the seriously messed up.

I enjoyed David Codreas comment. "Since when does throwing a scrap of flesh to a pack of circling jackals encourage them to do anything but close in for more? To expect otherwise is just crazy."
 
Eeyore

Eeyore

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
551
Location
the meanest city in the stupidest state
Everybody's reacting to this as if this imposed some new limitation or newly-expanded definitions of mental illness. According to the article, that's not what Cornyn is proposing: "People who have been legally ruled 'mentally defective' or been committed to mental institutions are already barred from buying firearms. But states are not required to send those records to the FBI-run federal database, leaving it uneven." [emphasis added] It appears to me that Cornyn's bill is simply trying to improve the validity of the existing NICS system, using already-existing criteria, by increasing the amount of data provided to it. No expanded exclusions are being proposed, and no legal recourse is being taken away.

Real-world example: Seung-hui Cho (the VA Tech shooter) was able to legally purchase his gun because they didn't have the records of his previous commitment in NICS.

Add to this the fact that gun control proponents don't like the proposed bill, and I'd say this is actually an improvement over the status quo.
 
B

beebobby

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
847
Location
, ,
Eeyore said:
Everybody's reacting to this as if this imposed some new limitation or newly-expanded definitions of mental illness. According to the article, that's not what Cornyn is proposing: "People who have been legally ruled 'mentally defective' or been committed to mental institutions are already barred from buying firearms. But states are not required to send those records to the FBI-run federal database, leaving it uneven." [emphasis added] It appears to me that Cornyn's bill is simply trying to improve the validity of the existing NICS system, using already-existing criteria, by increasing the amount of data provided to it. No expanded exclusions are being proposed, and no legal recourse is being taken away.

Real-world example: Seung-hui Cho (the VA Tech shooter) was able to legally purchase his gun because they didn't have the records of his previous commitment in NICS.

Add to this the fact that gun control proponents don't like the proposed bill, and I'd say this is actually an improvement over the status quo.
Click to expand...

Enforcing a law that was already on the books.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top