Suggs and Guns

[NCRAVEN]

so youre saying you wont pass a psych eval? because than no you should lose your right just like a convict. a convict proved he was incapable of being responsible. a psych eval does the same thing as a background check but would be a preemptive measure as opposed to reactive. thats all.

as far as who pays and if you cant afford it, well thats no different than a car and car insurance, imo. you cant afford it you dont get one. can afford it but not the insurance, you still dont get one. i dont see how thats any different regardless of the law.

I made no mention of passing a psych eval. Let's not muddy the waters.

A psych eval is subjective to the person performing it anyway. So, if you think it's lawful to require me to pay for a background check and require me to pay for for a psych eval to leave it in the hands of someone who as far as I know could be anti-gun. No I don't think psych evals are a good idea. If you think people should get a psych eval to own a gun, why not to drive a car?

I don't know why you even think they are a good idea, you've already admitted to more laws on owning guns won't stop people who shouldn't have them from getting them. At this point you're arguing against yourself.

[JAB1985]

The preamble is not legally binding.

And you didn't answer my question. Are you ok with breathalysers in every car? What does it matter what a gun is designed to do anyway? It's their simplest forms, both a car and gun are mere tools, both capable of good and bad in the hands of a human.

FAR more folks are killed across the country by drunk drivers than they are by a gun. So why not apply your same standard to something as every day as driving?



No it's not within the constitution to deny rights without due process. Requiring someone to see a shrink caters to the few exceptions all the while placing an undue burden on the vast majority folks who are doing the right thing (note the word "undue" and it's literal definition; something that is outside the bounds of due process is "undue").

And nobody is advocating giving guns to those who should not have them. What I am saying is there's a way to do it without infringing on my rights.

im curious how youre suggesting to do so without stricter screening processes or gun control?

As far as breathalyzers go, i dont think its a horrible idea honestly. if it was something that was standard when cars were invented wed be used to it by now and it would be no issues, but since the world progresses and this is something newer than the original invention and people arent used to it and generally dislike "change", it would be. If my car had a breathalyzer it would not effect me because i would not drive drunk regardless. it would only effect those that do drive drunk, which again, would be the point. its not taking away your right to own and operate a vehicle, but the state in which you can. its not taking away the right to own and operate a fire arm, but the state in which you can. i dont see the dilemma here.

[HoustonRaven]

I think Texas' standards are the perfect balance between liberty and sensible regulation. Instant background check when you buy a gun, of which includes a check to see if you've been committed or otherwise are mentally unfit to own a weapon. To carry concealed, you must pass a background check, attend a 10 hour training class, submit to fingerprints and qualify with the style of weapon you wish to carry (semi-auto, or revolver).

I don't think it's a coincidence that states with more liberal gun laws have a much lower violent crime rate per capita than states whose gun restrictions are more strict.

Like I said, its a philosophical ideal we're not going solve here.

Liberty is not eliminated in one giant swoop. It's piddled at one small piece at a time and it's always in the name of security, safety or "the children".

A small inconvenience here, another small regulation there and voila, you're nothing close to the true intent of the right and nobody is safer.

You're fine with the process. I am not.

[JAB1985]

I made no mention of passing a psych eval. Let's not muddy the waters.

A psych eval is subjective to the person performing it anyway. So, if you think it's lawful to require me to pay for a background check and require me to pay for for a psych eval to leave it in the hands of someone who as far as I know could be anti-gun. No I don't think psych evals are a good idea. If you think people should get a psych eval to own a gun, why not to drive a car?

I don't know why you even think they are, you've already admitted to more laws on owning guns won't stop people who shouldn't have them from getting them. At this point you're arguing against yourself.

First, I didnt say more laws wouldnt stop ALL people that shouldnt have them from getting them, merely the criminal aspect of it will be unaffected. if you think the only two sides are responsible gun owners and criminals than were at a disagreement in general. I always look at the gray in black and white situations and this topic has one as well. there are people unfit to own and operate a gun while also not being criminals. this is who any gun law would be made for. any, because gun laws shouldnt effect you and HR as responsible gun owners and it wont effect criminals. its merely an inconvenience which youve both admitted is something you just dont want and pointing to your right to own as the reasoning why, which this doesn't infringe upon. youll still own it at the end of the day.

I really dont think were all that far apart in views despite the obvious differences. as Ive said numerous times, Im pro gun. i think you should be able to go out and buy whatever you want, full auto, AR, bazooka, i really dont care, i just dont think a stricter screening process and the burden on the purchaser is asking too much.

[NCRAVEN]

First, I didnt say more laws wouldnt stop ALL people that shouldnt have them from getting them, merely the criminal aspect of it will be unaffected. if you think the only two sides are responsible gun owners and criminals than were at a disagreement in general. I always look at the gray in black and white situations and this topic has one as well. there are people unfit to own and operate a gun while also not being criminals. this is who any gun law would be made for. any, because gun laws shouldnt effect you and HR as responsible gun owners and it wont effect criminals. its merely an inconvenience which youve both admitted is something you just dont want and pointing to your right to own as the reasoning why, which this doesn't infringe upon. youll still own it at the end of the day.

I really dont think were all that far apart in views despite the obvious differences. as Ive said numerous times, Im pro gun. i think you should be able to go out and buy whatever you want, full auto, AR, bazooka, i really dont care, i just dont think a stricter screening process and the burden on the purchaser is asking too much.

Question: Do you think a psych eval is subjective to the person performing it?

[JAB1985]

I think Texas' standards are the perfect balance between liberty and sensible regulation. Instant background check when you buy a gun, of which includes a check to see if you've been committed or otherwise are mentally unfit to own a weapon. To carry concealed, you must pass a background check, attend a 10 hour training class, submit to fingerprints and qualify with the style of weapon you wish to carry (semi-auto, or revolver).

I don't think it's a coincidence that states with more liberal gun laws have a much lower violent crime rate per capita than states whose gun restrictions are more strict.

Like I said, its a philosophical ideal we're not going solve here.

Liberty is not eliminated in one giant swoop. It's piddled at one small piece at a time and it's always in the name of security, safety or "the children".

A small inconvenience here, another small regulation there and voila, you're nothing close to the true intent of the right and nobody is safer.

You're fine with the process. I am not.

and i can agree with that to an extent, but i dont see how THIS is infringing on your right. Add to it more regulations and this and that and id probably agree that IF its taking away the right of fit responsible gun owners than its not something i would support either. youre looking 10 more laws down the road that would still need to be made, debated and passed, im looking at the one right in front of me and the intent of it. not unlike you looking at the constitution and the intent of it.

[NCRAVEN]

and i can agree with that to an extent, but i dont see how THIS is infringing on your right. Add to it more regulations and this and that and id probably agree that IF its taking away the right of fit responsible gun owners than its not something i would support either. youre looking 10 more laws down the road that would still need to be made, debated and passed, im looking at the one right in front of me and the intent of it. not unlike you looking at the constitution and the intent of it.

[JAB1985]

Question: Do you think a psych eval is subjective to the person performing it?

can be, can not be. Theres standard tests for such a thing where answers "outside the norm" are flagged in which than you would have to go see a shrink and explain your answer. that would probably be the quickest and cheapest way to implement such a law and its something that companies already are incorporating into their hiring processes.

I think youre reaching if youre saying that a large majority of shrinks are pro-gun control and wouldnt pass anybody if thats what youre implying. Ill admit its possible a few would have agendas but in the grand scheme of things their Drs and have taken a Hippocratic oath to help people.

[HoustonRaven]

and i can agree with that to an extent, but i dont see how THIS is infringing on your right. Add to it more regulations and this and that and id probably agree that IF its taking away the right of fit responsible gun owners than its not something i would support either. youre looking 10 more laws down the road that would still need to be made, debated and passed, im looking at the one right in front of me and the intent of it. not unlike you looking at the constitution and the intent of it.

What NC's pic says in jest, I will spell out.

Psych evals ... then what?

Ammo registration ... then what?

Micro stamping .... then what?

Get the point?

There's always a new "helpful" regulation, which individually mean nothing, but as a collective make it repressive for the honest folks.

And I am not comfortable with my government, the same government that makes mistakes an art form, deciding something as subjective as sanity without due process.

You really think a state like Maryland would give gun owners a fair shake? All it would take would be one study from some yahoo at a university saying "Gun ownership is a sign of mental defect" and the state has all the license it needs to stop you from making the purchase.

At some point you cross the line from sensible to burdensome (and then into unconstitutional).

[HoustonRaven]

Ill admit its possible a few would have agendas but in the grand scheme of things their Drs and have taken a Hippocratic oath to help people.

And every national politician in this country takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. How's that working out?

[JAB1985]

What NC's pic says in jest, I will spell out.

Psych evals ... then what?

Ammo registration ... then what?

Micro stamping .... then what?

Get the point?

There's always a new "helpful" regulation, which individually mean nothing, but as a collective make it repressive for the honest folks.

And I am not comfortable with my government, the same government that makes mistakes an art form, deciding something as subjective as sanity without due process.

You really think a state like Maryland would give gun owners a fair shake? All it would take would be one study from some yahoo at a university saying "Gun ownership is a sign of mental defect" and the state has all the license it needs to stop you from making the purchase.

At some point you cross the line from sensible to burdensome (and then into unconstitutional).

so your answer is any law leads to more laws, so we should have no laws? This law is ok, but this one isnt. thats basically my argument. You can use the slippery slope tactic to debate ether side. its invalid, imo.

[Sirdowski]

Like I said, its a philosophical ideal we're not going solve here.

Liberty is not eliminated in one giant swoop. It's piddled at one small piece at a time and it's always in the name of security, safety or "the children".

A small inconvenience here, another small regulation there and voila, you're nothing close to the true intent of the right and nobody is safer.

You're fine with the process. I am not.

I'm not directing this at you Jab, but it's simple straw man attacking when the left paints the right as nut jobs who believe liberals are sinister and maliciously trying to infringe upon constitutional rights.

I take the position of Hanlon's razor:

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

[NCRAVEN]

I think youre reaching if youre saying that a large majority of shrinks are pro-gun control and wouldnt pass anybody if thats what youre implying. Ill admit its possible a few would have agendas but in the grand scheme of things their Drs and have taken a Hippocratic oath to help people.

No I am not saying that ALL are. Maybe a few could be, maybe not.

But leaving it in the hands of someone else to decide I'm unfit based on their opinion - no thanks.

And I am not comfortable with my government, the same government that makes mistakes an art form, deciding something as subjective as sanity without due process.

You really think a state like Maryland would give gun owners a fair shake? All it would take would be one study from some yahoo at a university saying "Gun ownership is a sign of mental defect" and the state has all the license it needs to stop you from making the purchase.

At some point you cross the line from sensible to burdensome (and then into unconstitutional).

This.

[HoustonRaven]

so your answer is any law leads to more laws, so we should have no laws? This law is ok, but this one isnt. thats basically my argument.

No. I am arguing that "good intentions" lead to wholly unnecessary laws in the name of security, all the while eroding liberty.

It's an axiom that's played out time and time again over our history yet we, as humans, never learn from it.

[JAB1985]

so the government, state or otherwise, using the private sector to distinguish ones sanity is not wanted because the government makes mistakes. I would say as is the human condition to be flawed but to each their own. Having said Dr. label others beforehand and enforcing the same diagnosis that was made before trying to purchase a gun is acceptable, but asking for that diagnosis at time of purchase isnt? To me thats basically arguing that we should be fighting for convicts and mental patients rights to own guns as well, because they could have been wrongly accused or diagnosed which im sure has happened. The answer isnt no laws and the answer isnt a billion laws and neither of us are really proposing either. if you take the bill of rights at face value i dont know how you can distinguish between regulating for some but not others and saying im the one on a slippery slope for saying there should be a stricter screening process.

No. I am arguing that "good intentions" lead to wholly unnecessary laws in the name of security, all the while eroding liberty.

It's an axiom that's played out time and time again over our history yet we, as humans, never learn from it.

well im sure wed agree on plenty of good intention laws that are completely unnecessary to the average american. id argue laws arent for the average but for the outliers however.

[NCRAVEN]

JAB I see your point and I think it's well intended.

Let me ask you this. If I or someone fails an evaluation whether it be slightly fail or totally fail, but the person performing it misunderstood what I was saying, what recourse would I have?

Along with a psych eval. and criminals are those the only things you'd want to determine if someone is fit?

[HoustonRaven]

Like I said, we're not going to convince one another.

You favor more governmental intervention.

As a Libertarian, I do not.

Since 1996, less folks are killed by guns per capita than any other time in our history, all the while there are more guns than ever in circulation.

Since 1996, the number of states which allow concealed carry went from zero to 46 2012. The violent crime rate per capita in these states is vastly lower than in states which have stricter controls.

Since 1996, the overall crime stats for the nation have been in a steady decline across the board with violent crime being amongst the largest drops.

So no, we do not need any more laws and there's a strong case to be made, as numerous Economists have made, that more guns equals less crime.

[JAB1985]

Like I said, we're not going to convince one another.

You favor more governmental intervention.

As a Libertarian, I do not.

Since 1996, less folks are killed by guns per capita than any other time in our history, all the while there are more guns than ever in circulation.

Since 1996, the number of states which allow concealed carry went from zero to 46 2012. The violent crime rate per capita in these states is vastly lower than in states which have stricter controls.

Since 1996, the overall crime stats for the nation have been in a steady decline across the board with violent crime being amongst the largest drops.

So no, we do not need any more laws and there's a strong case to be made, as numerous Economists have made, that more guns equals less crime.

nothing wrong with libertarian views, i typically am in line with them. This is one issue im not really liberal or conservative. I just think theres a line where youre saying some laws are ok but this or maybe any more is where youre drawing the line, which is perfectly fine. I still think at the end of the day we want the same things just disagree a little on how to go about it.

[JAB1985]

JAB I see your point and I think it's well intended.

Let me ask you this. If I or someone fails an evaluation whether it be slightly fail or totally fail, but the person performing it misunderstood what I was saying, what recourse would I have?

Along with a psych eval. and criminals are those the only things you'd want to determine if someone is fit?

Seeing as this is my hypothetical solution, imo, if someone failed or was flagged and deemed not fit to own, id say a second opinion would be warranted in an appeal so to speak. My wife works in the nuclear industry and had to take one. Some of her co-workers were flagged for their answers on the written test and had to see a shrink. All of them were cleared once allowed to explain. I would think the majority would fall under that category. Seemed to be a pretty basic test/process that wasnt to intrusive while still surving the purpose intended.

I wouldnt even say all mentally unstable. Its very possible one could be bi-polar or depressed but medicated and completely normal. Id say the psych eval would allow those that are diagnosed and properly medicated to still own even. And yes i dont think the current laws against convicts would hurt.

[NCRAVEN]

Seeing as this is my hypothetical solution, imo, if someone failed or was flagged and deemed not fit to own, id say a second opinion would be warranted in an appeal so to speak. My wife works in the nuclear industry and had to take one. Some of her co-workers were flagged for their answers on the written test and had to see a shrink. All of them were cleared once allowed to explain. I would think the majority would fall under that category. Seemed to be a pretty basic test/process that wasnt to intrusive while still surving the purpose intended.

I wouldnt even say all mentally unstable. Its very possible one could be bi-polar or depressed but medicated and completely normal. Id say the psych eval would allow those that are diagnosed and properly medicated to still own even. And yes i dont think the current laws against convicts would hurt.

Under your hypothetical, I could see possibly taking some sort of written test (a very basic are you competent test) for someone who wanted to carry a weapon, but not for simple ownership to protect your house.

I haven't taken the concealed carry course here in NC yet, but I'd imagine there is something on there that would cover something like that.

But for simple ownership, I would say that passing a driver's test, doing the things necessary to keep a license, getting up everyday and going to a job, paying your bills, owning a home etc. passing a background check is enough proof that you're a mentally competent person to own a gun and keep it in your house.