Reasonable regulations

[dwalker]

I work with mentally ill violent felons. They should never have guns. They would try to kill you with a spork if they could. Fully 2A but there really is a good reason some people should not be able to own guns.

Are they locked up?

Make no mistake, I worked with juvenile delinquents when I was in college, and some people really deserve to be locked up. I am not talking about those people.

If you are free to walk around the streets of the US, then you have the Right to bear arms. As you say, a person who is nuts will use whatever is at hand- spork, car, rat poison, whatever, and a gun is the least of your worries.


I think for some reason in this country we have become afraid of the man with a gun. I do not fear criminals with a gun, because I have a gun.

You know what I fear? I fear the cowlike sense of "safety" that stupid people have fostered by thinking that not allowing guns and having metal detectors in place that we are somehow "safe". I distrust people who think that because felons and psychos are "not allowed" guns that for some reason in some way that is OK and makes us safer. I fear this sense of complacency, because it gets people killed when a terrorist decides to drive a heavy truck through a crowded street, or a nutjob with a cause slips a chemical grenade through "security" as a thermos of coffee, or a "disgruntled worker" takes out a bunch of wal-mart shoppers with a baseball bat and set of steak knives.

But hey, we made sure they could not get guns...

[njineermike]

What would he consider a "reasonable restriction" on the right to a fair trial?

[tsnoforn]

Today I interacted with someone on another forum on the topic of body armor. Well that's where it started, in his/her post they said body armor should be regulated along with "large caliber rifles" in a way that NFA items are. Also said things like NODs and ballistic helmets should also be regulated. They also said they own many firearms in a free state.

I've never interacted with a person who owns firearms who thinks they need to be regulated MORE.

So TL/DR; what's your idea of "reasonable" regulations for weapons?

I'll start, And I'm sure I'll get flamed by someone for this.

I think the only regulation should be a background check to assure you are not mentally ill or a violent criminal. All small arms should be readily available to anyone who wishes to own them. No NFA items. Auto, burst, SBR/SBS, suppressed should all be available over the counter at any gun shop.

Edit: after being schooled a bit, and doing some research, I've been steered into a better path. Also, the ruby ridge documentary is on Netflix if anyone is interested.

But by all means, flame on for my original post.

Well, I own lots of guns and live in a free state but...

1. The line must be drawn somewhere. I live in a state where I'm pretty sure I can legally own an M-60. So... what is the line between firearm and destructive device. Should I be permitted to own a four deuce (minimum range, I'll show you minimum range...)

You get the picture. Fully automatic weapons should probably not be considered small arms. Now, not illegal to own, but with some additional controls.

2. Silencers, body armor, ninja throwing stars... whatever. I live in a state without restrictions, so I can have any of it. I don't think anyone can really regulate clothes, can they?

3. I know californians are fighting the good fight... but out here in the free world, where we live without a lot of restrictions (the NFA is only a tax, not a restriction) there arent a lot of people who worry about restricting vests. Because none of us own one (except the ones I buy the local police and they'd better have them on). So some people talk without thinking.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[deckhandmike]

For safe, sane individuals I see no reason for any restrictions.

Yes, the folks I'm talking about are locked up. However, we have them medicated and marginally stable and they still attack us. Soon as they hit the streets they ditch their meds and start doing meth. They should be prevented from walking into a shop and getting a hi point. Is it a 100% effective, no. But some are so ill that being denied on a back ground check would actually deter them.

[jdl6mm]

Amendment ix doesn't really talk or mention about any specific right. It actually is just talking about rights that aren't mentioned in other amendments. This was done so they couldn't specifically focus on those rights mentioned.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

[jdl6mm]

Psychiatric conditions....They already pose a risk. They are already unstable. They are far more likely to go off than someone that is "normal". Apparently you've never dealt with psych patients. Even on meds some are genuinely nuts. Even on meds, the ones that aren't "nuts" but are schizophrenic, if they don't recognize they have a disease, then they aren't stable. I've worked with them. They can flip in a sec.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

[8886]

Bacon.

[Milsurp Collector]

The violent and criminally insane should be locked up until they are no longer capable of violence, up to their whole life if that is what is necessary. But overall, the mentally ill are more likely to be crime victims than crime perpetrators, and are no more likely to use a gun in a violent crime than the general population.

Research on the relationship between gun violence and mental illness shows that the vast majority of mentally ill individuals are not violent or suicidal. Our group at Duke University recently published a study of approximately 82,000 people diagnosed with serious mental illnesses in Florida between 2002 and 2011. We found that those with serious mental health disorders with records in the public behavioral health system were no more likely than the general adult population in Florida to use a gun to harm others, and they were only slightly more likely to die in a gun-related suicide. Thus, people with mental illnesses are no more dangerous to others when they have equal access to guns.

Jeffery Swanson is a professor in psychiatry and behavioral Sciences at Duke University School of Medicine.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-mentally-ill-gun-buying-ban-20170213-story.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/06/untangling-gun-violence-from-mental-illness/485906/

Yet surprisingly little population-level evidence supports the notion that individuals diagnosed with mental illness are more likely than anyone else to commit gun crimes. According to Appelbaum,25 less than 3% to 5% of US crimes involve people with mental illness, and the percentages of crimes that involve guns are lower than the national average for persons not diagnosed with mental illness. Databases that track gun homicides, such as the National Center for Health Statistics, similarly show that fewer than 5% of the 120 000 gun-related killings in the United States between 2001 and 2010 were perpetrated by people diagnosed with mental illness.26

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/

[ScottyXbones]

The study showed that the mentally ill don't commit many crimes with guns because its already illegal for them to own guns ^

2/3 of gun deaths are suicides, I'd call that a mental health problem. The 2A doesn't specify that murderers and crazies are denied the RKBA, true, but the constitution includes the rules for a judicial branch, whose sole purpose is to determine why, how and where to deprive someone of their rights.

[CALI-gula]

"Reasonable punch to the throat".

Sounds just as reasonable to me.

.

[jdl6mm]

Exactly. They did the study by questionnaire or interview.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

[deckhandmike]

The violent and criminally insane should be locked up until they are no longer capable of violence, up to their whole life if that is what is necessary. But overall, the mentally ill are more likely to be crime victims than crime perpetrators, and are no more likely to use a gun in a violent crime than the general population.

Cite any bogus article you want. You obviously have no idea what you are advocating for. I don't say that to be disrespectful but if you only knew you wouldn't be for this. Mentally ill are already prohibited so their gun violence should be way less anyhow. Most use knives, rocks or anything they can get there hands on to commit crimes.

[jdl6mm]

Cite any bogus article you want. You obviously have no idea what you are advocating for. I don't say that to be disrespectful but if you only knew you wouldn't be for this. Mentally ill are already prohibited so their gun violence should be way less anyhow. Most use knives, rocks or anything they can get there hands on to commit crimes.

Exactly

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

[GW]

Where does it say that in the 2nd Amendment?

At what point do you choose to draw a line?

It does not say that in the Second Amendment
Nonetheless I draw that line at felonies Don't commit crimes and you don't lose your rights. Why is that such a difficult concept for criminals to understand.
But...If, after completion of the felon's sentence and demonstration of the ability to stay out of trouble for some tbd period of time, that former felon should have a mechanism to get his/her rights restored.
As for the insane/mentally incompetent If they are diagnosed and adjudicated by a licensed psychiatrist as insane etc. then yes, they should be prohibited from owning firearms. Yes, they could still stab or poison or bomb people, but those acts, IIRC are already illegal. So yes, the insane should be prohibited from owning grenades and if there is a confirmed report of a mass sporking by an insane person then prohibiting the insane from owning sporks should be considered as well.
Now
I asked you a question that you didn't answer before so I'll ask it again regarding where you draw the line.
Would you sell or give that obvious, diagnosed paranoid-schizophrenic woman a gun?

[Milsurp Collector]

Cite any bogus article you want. You obviously have no idea what you are advocating for. I don't say that to be disrespectful but if you only knew you wouldn't be for this. Mentally ill are already prohibited so their gun violence should be way less anyhow. Most use knives, rocks or anything they can get there hands on to commit crimes.

Talk about obviously having no idea what you're talking about.

FYI, most mentally ill people are not prohibited from owning guns. Only those adjudicated mentally defective (by a court) or who were committed to a mental institution are prohibited from possessing firearms.

• who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
  
• who is an illegal alien;
  
• who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
• who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
  
• who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
• who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

FYI, there are millions of mentally ill people in this country who are not prohibited from owning firearms, and if you had actually read those so-called "bogus" articles you would have learned that they are no more likely to use a gun criminally than the general population. Try reading the articles before calling them bogus.

Exactly

And by saying "exactly" you show you don't know what you're talking about either.