Common Sense Gun Laws

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US v. Rahimi decision was a good decision and upheld a common sense gun law.

Finally SCOTUS did something to tell “shall not be infringed” to shove it up their @ss.

+1 It looks like Roberts realized that Bruen was a runaway train and he’s trying to pull it back.

This although a stretch still fits into the Bruen construct. In the end the vast, vast, majority of law abiding people will be able to have a weapon for self protection in the vast majority of places they wish to go.

It unfortunately will just take more cases and time to get there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US v. Rahimi decision was a good decision and upheld a common sense gun law.

Finally SCOTUS did something to tell “shall not be infringed” to shove it up their @ss.

+1 It looks like Roberts realized that Bruen was a runaway train and he’s trying to pull it back.

This although a stretch still fits into the Bruen construct. In the end the vast, vast, majority of law abiding people will be able to have a weapon for self protection in the vast majority of places they wish to go.

It unfortunately will just take more cases and time to get there.

It’s the first time in a while that any restriction has been put in place and upheld. We’ve been on a long descent into no rules at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US v. Rahimi decision was a good decision and upheld a common sense gun law.

Finally SCOTUS did something to tell “shall not be infringed” to shove it up their @ss.

+1 It looks like Roberts realized that Bruen was a runaway train and he’s trying to pull it back.

This although a stretch still fits into the Bruen construct. In the end the vast, vast, majority of law abiding people will be able to have a weapon for self protection in the vast majority of places they wish to go.

It unfortunately will just take more cases and time to get there.

It’s the first time in a while that any restriction has been put in place and upheld. We’ve been on a long descent into no rules at all.

We still need to deal with stopping people with mental illness from being able to buy or have access to guns in their household and so many other things. Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook and so many other shootings could have been preventable. Along with a huge number of gun suicides.

[Anonymous]

Once and for all, there is not going to be more fun control legislation in the US. The obscenities named Alito and Thomas won't allow it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US v. Rahimi decision was a good decision and upheld a common sense gun law.

Finally SCOTUS did something to tell “shall not be infringed” to shove it up their @ss.

+1 It looks like Roberts realized that Bruen was a runaway train and he’s trying to pull it back.

This although a stretch still fits into the Bruen construct. In the end the vast, vast, majority of law abiding people will be able to have a weapon for self protection in the vast majority of places they wish to go.

It unfortunately will just take more cases and time to get there.

It’s the first time in a while that any restriction has been put in place and upheld. We’ve been on a long descent into no rules at all.

We still need to deal with stopping people with mental illness from being able to buy or have access to guns in their household and so many other things. Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook and so many other shootings could have been preventable. Along with a huge number of gun suicides.

I agree with you but I can't help but wonder...how? Require a mental health screening before every purchase? Require an annual mental health screening to retain possession? I don't see any Republican ever supporting any such measure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once and for all, there is not going to be more fun control legislation in the US. The obscenities named Alito and Thomas won't allow it.

I'm glad to hear that you've recovered from your weeklong coma. Let me tell you what happened last Friday...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US v. Rahimi decision was a good decision and upheld a common sense gun law.

Finally SCOTUS did something to tell “shall not be infringed” to shove it up their @ss.

+1 It looks like Roberts realized that Bruen was a runaway train and he’s trying to pull it back.

This although a stretch still fits into the Bruen construct. In the end the vast, vast, majority of law abiding people will be able to have a weapon for self protection in the vast majority of places they wish to go.

It unfortunately will just take more cases and time to get there.

It’s the first time in a while that any restriction has been put in place and upheld. We’ve been on a long descent into no rules at all.

We still need to deal with stopping people with mental illness from being able to buy or have access to guns in their household and so many other things. Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook and so many other shootings could have been preventable. Along with a huge number of gun suicides.

I agree with you but I can't help but wonder...how? Require a mental health screening before every purchase? Require an annual mental health screening to retain possession? I don't see any Republican ever supporting any such measure.

You are missing the point mental health is the issue, you don’t tie it to gun purchases or anything else.

People have required annual mental health check-ups. Pass and you enjoy all rights and responsibilities of being part of society. Don’t pass and you enjoy your stay in a humane, caring institution without access to harmful things until you can safely rejoin society.

I believe most Americans would support this proposal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US v. Rahimi decision was a good decision and upheld a common sense gun law.

Finally SCOTUS did something to tell “shall not be infringed” to shove it up their @ss.

+1 It looks like Roberts realized that Bruen was a runaway train and he’s trying to pull it back.

This although a stretch still fits into the Bruen construct. In the end the vast, vast, majority of law abiding people will be able to have a weapon for self protection in the vast majority of places they wish to go.

It unfortunately will just take more cases and time to get there.

It’s the first time in a while that any restriction has been put in place and upheld. We’ve been on a long descent into no rules at all.

We still need to deal with stopping people with mental illness from being able to buy or have access to guns in their household and so many other things. Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook and so many other shootings could have been preventable. Along with a huge number of gun suicides.

I agree with you but I can't help but wonder...how? Require a mental health screening before every purchase? Require an annual mental health screening to retain possession? I don't see any Republican ever supporting any such measure.

You are missing the point mental health is the issue, you don’t tie it to gun purchases or anything else.

People have required annual mental health check-ups. Pass and you enjoy all rights and responsibilities of being part of society. Don’t pass and you enjoy your stay in a humane, caring institution without access to harmful things until you can safely rejoin society.

I believe most Americans would support this proposal.

You make it seem like there are two black-and-white possibilities: 100% mentally healthy, and requiring institutionalization. In fact there are millions of people who have mental health issues which they treat through medication and/or counseling, and are productive members of society.

At the same time, citizens of the UK, Australia and Japan also struggle with mental health but they have orders of magnitude fewer gun deaths per capita. Maybe mental health is not the issue.

In any case, let's look at Sandy Hook. As far as we know, the owner of the gun (the shooter's mother) had no mental health issues. So do we need to mentally screen all residents of a home in order for one of them to own a gun?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US v. Rahimi decision was a good decision and upheld a common sense gun law.

Finally SCOTUS did something to tell “shall not be infringed” to shove it up their @ss.

+1 It looks like Roberts realized that Bruen was a runaway train and he’s trying to pull it back.

This although a stretch still fits into the Bruen construct. In the end the vast, vast, majority of law abiding people will be able to have a weapon for self protection in the vast majority of places they wish to go.

It unfortunately will just take more cases and time to get there.

It’s the first time in a while that any restriction has been put in place and upheld. We’ve been on a long descent into no rules at all.

We still need to deal with stopping people with mental illness from being able to buy or have access to guns in their household and so many other things. Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook and so many other shootings could have been preventable. Along with a huge number of gun suicides.

I agree with you but I can't help but wonder...how? Require a mental health screening before every purchase? Require an annual mental health screening to retain possession? I don't see any Republican ever supporting any such measure.

You are missing the point mental health is the issue, you don’t tie it to gun purchases or anything else.

People have required annual mental health check-ups. Pass and you enjoy all rights and responsibilities of being part of society. Don’t pass and you enjoy your stay in a humane, caring institution without access to harmful things until you can safely rejoin society.

I believe most Americans would support this proposal.

You make it seem like there are two black-and-white possibilities: 100% mentally healthy, and requiring institutionalization. In fact there are millions of people who have mental health issues which they treat through medication and/or counseling, and are productive members of society.

At the same time, citizens of the UK, Australia and Japan also struggle with mental health but they have orders of magnitude fewer gun deaths per capita. Maybe mental health is not the issue.

In any case, let's look at Sandy Hook. As far as we know, the owner of the gun (the shooter's mother) had no mental health issues. So do we need to mentally screen all residents of a home in order for one of them to own a gun?

DP... How about having that annual checkup only apply to gun purchase and ownership, and if you pass you get to keep your gun, if you fail, you give up your gun? Seems a hell of a lot more easy to implement and a less insane than institutionalizing a huge swath of the population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US v. Rahimi decision was a good decision and upheld a common sense gun law.

Finally SCOTUS did something to tell “shall not be infringed” to shove it up their @ss.

+1 It looks like Roberts realized that Bruen was a runaway train and he’s trying to pull it back.

This although a stretch still fits into the Bruen construct. In the end the vast, vast, majority of law abiding people will be able to have a weapon for self protection in the vast majority of places they wish to go.

It unfortunately will just take more cases and time to get there.

It’s the first time in a while that any restriction has been put in place and upheld. We’ve been on a long descent into no rules at all.

We still need to deal with stopping people with mental illness from being able to buy or have access to guns in their household and so many other things. Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook and so many other shootings could have been preventable. Along with a huge number of gun suicides.

I agree with you but I can't help but wonder...how? Require a mental health screening before every purchase? Require an annual mental health screening to retain possession? I don't see any Republican ever supporting any such measure.

You are missing the point mental health is the issue, you don’t tie it to gun purchases or anything else.

People have required annual mental health check-ups. Pass and you enjoy all rights and responsibilities of being part of society. Don’t pass and you enjoy your stay in a humane, caring institution without access to harmful things until you can safely rejoin society.

I believe most Americans would support this proposal.

You'd be talking about institutionalizing millions. Where would the funding come from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US v. Rahimi decision was a good decision and upheld a common sense gun law.

Finally SCOTUS did something to tell “shall not be infringed” to shove it up their @ss.

+1 It looks like Roberts realized that Bruen was a runaway train and he’s trying to pull it back.

This although a stretch still fits into the Bruen construct. In the end the vast, vast, majority of law abiding people will be able to have a weapon for self protection in the vast majority of places they wish to go.

It unfortunately will just take more cases and time to get there.

It’s the first time in a while that any restriction has been put in place and upheld. We’ve been on a long descent into no rules at all.

We still need to deal with stopping people with mental illness from being able to buy or have access to guns in their household and so many other things. Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook and so many other shootings could have been preventable. Along with a huge number of gun suicides.

I agree with you but I can't help but wonder...how? Require a mental health screening before every purchase? Require an annual mental health screening to retain possession? I don't see any Republican ever supporting any such measure.

You are missing the point mental health is the issue, you don’t tie it to gun purchases or anything else.

People have required annual mental health check-ups. Pass and you enjoy all rights and responsibilities of being part of society. Don’t pass and you enjoy your stay in a humane, caring institution without access to harmful things until you can safely rejoin society.

I believe most Americans would support this proposal.

You make it seem like there are two black-and-white possibilities: 100% mentally healthy, and requiring institutionalization. In fact there are millions of people who have mental health issues which they treat through medication and/or counseling, and are productive members of society.

At the same time, citizens of the UK, Australia and Japan also struggle with mental health but they have orders of magnitude fewer gun deaths per capita. Maybe mental health is not the issue.

In any case, let's look at Sandy Hook. As far as we know, the owner of the gun (the shooter's mother) had no mental health issues. So do we need to mentally screen all residents of a home in order for one of them to own a gun?

DP... How about having that annual checkup only apply to gun purchase and ownership, and if you pass you get to keep your gun, if you fail, you give up your gun? Seems a hell of a lot more easy to implement and a less insane than institutionalizing a huge swath of the population.

That's what I thought the PP at 14:36 meant when I agreed with them. It's a good start, but it still wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook since it was the son of the gun owner who was mentally ill. It's also difficult to implement - many gun owners wouldn't trust to government to perform an unbiased mental health evaluation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s naive to think these laws, if enacted, would meaningfully address or curb gun violence. All they would do is drive an industry, which is already moving underground, further underground. Illegal weapons would still be available to whomever wanted one.

Want to curb gun violence and mass shootings? Push for societal changes that lessen the chance of an individual being brought to the brink of committing mass murder. How do we do that? For starters clamp down on the rampant cyber bullying that takes place online. Boycott media moguls (movies, TV, music, video games) that profit off glorifying violence and promoting the idea that it’s cool or sexy to kill people with automatic firearms. Enact changes to education, employment, and housing policies that give more people a sense of hope or purpose in life so they can serve as better parents, role models, or mentors to youth.

“Common sense” gun laws sound nice, but they’re essentially window dressings that won’t fix the pervasive problems contributing to the epidemic of gun violence in 21st century America.

Why not both gun laws and societal change? Why does it have to be one or the other?

If, as you say, gun laws will cause the problem to go underground leading to no net effect, then why have regulations in other countries appeared to work?

Because other countries do not glorify guns and violence the way Americans do.

And other countries don’t have such a free-for-all with gun access.

No. They are just knifing each other to death and rapping about it. An evil person will find a way to kill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s naive to think these laws, if enacted, would meaningfully address or curb gun violence. All they would do is drive an industry, which is already moving underground, further underground. Illegal weapons would still be available to whomever wanted one.

Want to curb gun violence and mass shootings? Push for societal changes that lessen the chance of an individual being brought to the brink of committing mass murder. How do we do that? For starters clamp down on the rampant cyber bullying that takes place online. Boycott media moguls (movies, TV, music, video games) that profit off glorifying violence and promoting the idea that it’s cool or sexy to kill people with automatic firearms. Enact changes to education, employment, and housing policies that give more people a sense of hope or purpose in life so they can serve as better parents, role models, or mentors to youth.

“Common sense” gun laws sound nice, but they’re essentially window dressings that won’t fix the pervasive problems contributing to the epidemic of gun violence in 21st century America.

Why not both gun laws and societal change? Why does it have to be one or the other?

If, as you say, gun laws will cause the problem to go underground leading to no net effect, then why have regulations in other countries appeared to work?

Because other countries do not glorify guns and violence the way Americans do.

And other countries don’t have such a free-for-all with gun access.

No. They are just knifing each other to death and rapping about it. An evil person will find a way to kill.

And an evil person with an AR-15 can kill at scale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US v. Rahimi decision was a good decision and upheld a common sense gun law.

Finally SCOTUS did something to tell “shall not be infringed” to shove it up their @ss.

+1 It looks like Roberts realized that Bruen was a runaway train and he’s trying to pull it back.

This although a stretch still fits into the Bruen construct. In the end the vast, vast, majority of law abiding people will be able to have a weapon for self protection in the vast majority of places they wish to go.

It unfortunately will just take more cases and time to get there.

It’s the first time in a while that any restriction has been put in place and upheld. We’ve been on a long descent into no rules at all.

We still need to deal with stopping people with mental illness from being able to buy or have access to guns in their household and so many other things. Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook and so many other shootings could have been preventable. Along with a huge number of gun suicides.

I agree with you but I can't help but wonder...how? Require a mental health screening before every purchase? Require an annual mental health screening to retain possession? I don't see any Republican ever supporting any such measure.

You are missing the point mental health is the issue, you don’t tie it to gun purchases or anything else.

People have required annual mental health check-ups. Pass and you enjoy all rights and responsibilities of being part of society. Don’t pass and you enjoy your stay in a humane, caring institution without access to harmful things until you can safely rejoin society.

I believe most Americans would support this proposal.

You make it seem like there are two black-and-white possibilities: 100% mentally healthy, and requiring institutionalization. In fact there are millions of people who have mental health issues which they treat through medication and/or counseling, and are productive members of society.

At the same time, citizens of the UK, Australia and Japan also struggle with mental health but they have orders of magnitude fewer gun deaths per capita. Maybe mental health is not the issue.

In any case, let's look at Sandy Hook. As far as we know, the owner of the gun (the shooter's mother) had no mental health issues. So do we need to mentally screen all residents of a home in order for one of them to own a gun?

DP... How about having that annual checkup only apply to gun purchase and ownership, and if you pass you get to keep your gun, if you fail, you give up your gun? Seems a hell of a lot more easy to implement and a less insane than institutionalizing a huge swath of the population.

That's what I thought the PP at 14:36 meant when I agreed with them. It's a good start, but it still wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook since it was the son of the gun owner who was mentally ill. It's also difficult to implement - many gun owners wouldn't trust to government to perform an unbiased mental health evaluation.

The fix for Sandy Hook is that you can't have guns accessible to a mentally ill person. That means you either can't have guns in the house at all or you are required to keep them locked away and totally inaccessible to the mentally ill person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US v. Rahimi decision was a good decision and upheld a common sense gun law.

Finally SCOTUS did something to tell “shall not be infringed” to shove it up their @ss.

+1 It looks like Roberts realized that Bruen was a runaway train and he’s trying to pull it back.

This although a stretch still fits into the Bruen construct. In the end the vast, vast, majority of law abiding people will be able to have a weapon for self protection in the vast majority of places they wish to go.

It unfortunately will just take more cases and time to get there.

It’s the first time in a while that any restriction has been put in place and upheld. We’ve been on a long descent into no rules at all.

We still need to deal with stopping people with mental illness from being able to buy or have access to guns in their household and so many other things. Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook and so many other shootings could have been preventable. Along with a huge number of gun suicides.

I agree with you but I can't help but wonder...how? Require a mental health screening before every purchase? Require an annual mental health screening to retain possession? I don't see any Republican ever supporting any such measure.

You are missing the point mental health is the issue, you don’t tie it to gun purchases or anything else.

People have required annual mental health check-ups. Pass and you enjoy all rights and responsibilities of being part of society. Don’t pass and you enjoy your stay in a humane, caring institution without access to harmful things until you can safely rejoin society.

I believe most Americans would support this proposal.

You make it seem like there are two black-and-white possibilities: 100% mentally healthy, and requiring institutionalization. In fact there are millions of people who have mental health issues which they treat through medication and/or counseling, and are productive members of society.

At the same time, citizens of the UK, Australia and Japan also struggle with mental health but they have orders of magnitude fewer gun deaths per capita. Maybe mental health is not the issue.

In any case, let's look at Sandy Hook. As far as we know, the owner of the gun (the shooter's mother) had no mental health issues. So do we need to mentally screen all residents of a home in order for one of them to own a gun?

DP... How about having that annual checkup only apply to gun purchase and ownership, and if you pass you get to keep your gun, if you fail, you give up your gun? Seems a hell of a lot more easy to implement and a less insane than institutionalizing a huge swath of the population.

That's what I thought the PP at 14:36 meant when I agreed with them. It's a good start, but it still wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook since it was the son of the gun owner who was mentally ill. It's also difficult to implement - many gun owners wouldn't trust to government to perform an unbiased mental health evaluation.

The fix for Sandy Hook is that you can't have guns accessible to a mentally ill person. That means you either can't have guns in the house at all or you are required to keep them locked away and totally inaccessible to the mentally ill person.

^ and if the mentally ill person somehow gets at your guns because you didn't secure them then you're also liable.