another shooting

[Danzig]

now, we aren't the murder capital of the world...that's honduras, according to something on the radio the other day.

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d28...141895b7bb51ed

over the weekend, i saw that they had a rally at the alamo (normally not a site for such things, nor should it be), the rally being held by people who are pro-open carry....so, a bunch of folks were at the alamo for hours, carrying around their rifles. i'm sure it gave others pause, who were there to see history, and were no doubt wondering why others felt the need to be armed...after all, long guns are no help against ghosts of the 1830's.

at any rate, i'm a gun owner. own more than i ever thought i would, but will probably aquire more over the years. i believe in our constitution, and all the rights granted therein.

however, could we not come up with some common sense rules? so that i, a law abiding citizen who has never gotten anything more stern from a policeman than a speeding ticket (and it's been over a decade) won't have to worry about ever being disarmed?
you have to jump thru hoops to vote, to get a drivers license, medicare, medicaid, etc.
but a gun. pffft. no worries. oh, and i'm a person who has arrests, restraining orders, etc. no worries.
under a physicians care for mental issues? no worries.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Danzig

now, we aren't the murder capital of the world...that's honduras, according to something on the radio the other day.

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d28...141895b7bb51ed

over the weekend, i saw that they had a rally at the alamo (normally not a site for such things, nor should it be), the rally being held by people who are pro-open carry....so, a bunch of folks were at the alamo for hours, carrying around their rifles. i'm sure it gave others pause, who were there to see history, and were no doubt wondering why others felt the need to be armed...after all, long guns are no help against ghosts of the 1830's.

at any rate, i'm a gun owner. own more than i ever thought i would, but will probably aquire more over the years. i believe in our constitution, and all the rights granted therein.

however, could we not come up with some common sense rules? so that i, a law abiding citizen who has never gotten anything more stern from a policeman than a speeding ticket (and it's been over a decade) won't have to worry about ever being disarmed?
you have to jump thru hoops to vote, to get a drivers license, medicare, medicaid, etc.
but a gun. pffft. no worries. oh, and i'm a person who has arrests, restraining orders, etc. no worries.
under a physicians care for mental issues? no worries.

Zig, are you saying that you find the ATF background check is insufficient?

It is a slippery slope imo. Non-felonious arrests should not keep someone from owning a gun. Felony convictions? Well they do.

Restraining orders?


h. Are you subject to a court order restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child of such partner?




Here is a link to the ATF form you have to fill out and attest to.

http://www.thundertek.net/documents/4473.pdf

I don't know what more can be added that would make this process of Legally Acquiring a gun anymore thorough.

[Danzig]

yes, i'm saying the background check is insufficient. especially when they said not long ago that many states don't submit a lot of the info that they're looking for in the background checks. and with the hippa laws, many are also no longer submitting any mental health info. also, background checks are only done in about 4/5 of purchases. when the most recent attempt was made to close loopholes such as gun shows, private purchases, internet sales, people went nuts. saw a lot of comments about 'constitutionality'. er, that ship has sailed. checks are being done, just not in every instance. and i'm sure we know who benefits, knowing they can avoid a check and make a purchase.

the law they tried to pass was to help with state reporting of felony criminals, etc, and to change hippa laws in regards to reporting the mentally ill. youi know, the very people who shouldn't be able to buy. but the republicans did a great job in lying and getting people riled up (and then there's the nra), thus assuring a failure.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yes, i'm saying the background check is insufficient. especially when they said not long ago that many states don't submit a lot of the info that they're looking for in the background checks. and with the hippa laws, many are also no longer submitting any mental health info. also, background checks are only done in about 4/5 of purchases. when the most recent attempt was made to close loopholes such as gun shows, private purchases, internet sales, people went nuts. saw a lot of comments about 'constitutionality'. er, that ship has sailed. checks are being done, just not in every instance. and i'm sure we know who benefits, knowing they can avoid a check and make a purchase.

the law they tried to pass was to help with state reporting of felony criminals, etc, and to change hippa laws in regards to reporting the mentally ill. youi know, the very people who shouldn't be able to buy. but the republicans did a great job in lying and getting people riled up (and then there's the nra), thus assuring a failure.

What is "mentally ill"? Or " Under a physicians care for mental issues?"

A middle-aged man or woman who may be going through a particularly stressful patch in their everyday life (ie. lost a career and/or lost a home due to the economy, lost a parent) who then go to their doctor and are prescribed Ambien or Xanax is technically "Under a physician's care for mental issues".

I don't believe they should be required to forfeit their liberties to give others the false impression of "feeling" "more secure".

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

What is "mentally ill"? Or " Under a physicians care for mental issues?"

A middle-aged man or woman who may be going through a particularly stressful patch in their everyday life (ie. lost a career and/or lost a home due to the economy, lost a parent) who then go to their doctor and are prescribed Ambien or Xanax is technically "Under a physician's care for mental issues".

I don't believe they should be required to forfeit their liberties to give others the false impression of "feeling" "more secure".

i'm talking about people under a physicians care who the physician feels is very much a danger to society, is violent, etc. not talking about someone taking lexapro because they have anxiety or stress and can't sleep well.

[Rudeboyelvis]

A federal database of crazy people? Hmmmm...I think if they want one bad enough they will get one regardless...

I can tell you from first hand experience that I've been required (by the seller) to fill out a background check in two instances; once from an individual and once at a gun sale. Seller's who don't abide by the law need to be held accountable