Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Congress has a plan to save us from the 'crazies'

the problem, as alluded to previously, is who decides who is crazy and who is not.
It would be so easy to pull the rights to own a gun based on God alone knows what prefabricated evidence.
Our highly paid congress kritters once again showing that the best reaction is an OVER reaction.

Such a typical over reaction

I almost forgot this quote from the Brady Bunch


it tells you everything you need to know about their intentions.

Will be a sad day when they make the bill. Les

So let me see if the nutcase couldn't have gotten a gun he then could have surfed the net got a recipe for making a bomb and than blown up the whole school. Ya that's a better solution.

The real nutcases are in Washington.

I think that the gun lobby should make each bill like this an oppurtunity to expand gun rights in some way. We should try to have an admendment added to garuntee that there is a way to restore rights to people denied guns rights for criminal and mental reasons and that it be funded.

If they gun grabbers want there " reasonable" law to make us safer all we want is "reasonable" protection for those who erred in the past but are now repenatant for there crimes or menatally whole etc.

If we don't address the issues about mental illness and guns they will simply take them from all of us. Period. Everybody looses. It sounds like to me at least SOMEONE is putting some thought into this. More nut control and less gun control. It's up to us to help them find common sense. kwg

Blowing up the entire VTech campus with one bomb would have been a neat trick.

But of course guns and ammunition are more readily identifiable than bomb components, therefore easier to ban.

I mean...I'll bet a vacuum cleaner switched to "blow," a motorcycle carburetor, a 20-gallon drum of gasoline, and a weekend without anyone bothering it could turn an entire gymnasium into a giant fuel-air explosive. What are you going to ban to prevent that?

I wonder where they will draw that line... obviously people who should be locked up shouldn't have guns, or knives, or freedom- they should be locked up.
But depending on where they draw the line, where does that leave the upcoming generation that is so broadly exposed to psychiatric drugs? I know an alarming number of kids that are on some sort of anti-depressent, anti-anxiety, anti-ADD, anti-OCD, anti-whatever med. At the rate that the medical professionals are making formal diagnosies of kids and medicating them, depending on where that line is drawn, there may not be many adults in the future generations eligible for gun ownership. If the question is "Have you ever been on a psychiatric drug?", with no qualifier as to what it was or why or to what extent someone was diagnosed, lots of the upcoming generation could be excluded... but then I'm sure the anti's have thought of all that.

Many of or solons seek across the pond for guidance. The Fatherland now shows us the way: Police arrest child because she has been home-schooled. She has been placed in a mental institution.
All dissidents need government oversight. The "adjudication" should be left to dedicated government professionals, not the courts.
I'm doomed.

Keep guns out of the hands of "those who have been adjudicated mentally ill". Who could be against a common sense proposal like that? Unless.......

In the Soviet Union, anyone who desired to emmigrate was free to do so.....except for the mentally ill. Since the USSR was officially considered to be a worker's paradise and the birthplace of social justice, anyone who wanted to leave was obviously mentally incompetent. Request denied!

Depending on who is doing the adjudicating, the same principle could work for Sarah B. The act of applying to purchase a gun could be considered evidence of mental illness in some circles. I bet I could go through my local Yellow Pages and find a shrink who would testify to that in court.

exactly right. My concern is that all liberals are socialists, and all socialists are Stalinists, the direction this type of legislation is going is scary.
WHO gets to determine what is mental illness, and who is 'afflicted'.
With the example of the Soviets to go by, I don't trust a government to be the arbiter of mental illness, since it is so easily used as a political tool.
They could lock you up for writing a letter to the editor that was less than complimentary to the regime.

For starters, they might use the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM IV). If anyone thinks mental illness is just schizophrenics who hear voices, they should take a look at DSM IV. There are hundreds, perhaps over a thousand conditions listed, each with its own description, and a code number which is used for insurance purposes. It includes things such as "Adjustment Disorder of Adult Ilfe", and "Borderline Personality Disorder". Arguably, anyone who has ever seen some sort of counselor or received certain medications from a family physician could be deemed to have a "history of mental illness". For example, depression is thought to involve sleep mechanisms, and certain antidepressant drugs are of the same class as some sleep medications.

This is JMO, but given the history of the DSM, it is at least somewhat political as well as scientific. For example, homosexuality was listed in earlier editions of the DSM, and was removed only after lengthy debate within the APA. So homosexuals were once considered mentally ill.

As an aside, mental health and the law are a shaky marriage at best. For example, the whole concept of "insanity" is a legal construct that has little or no scientific or medical meaning.

Disclaimer: I am not a qualified mental health professional. I would welcome comment or correction from anyone so qualified.

Paul

[quote=Barak I mean...I'll bet a vacuum cleaner switched to "blow," a motorcycle carburetor, a 20-gallon drum of gasoline, and a weekend without anyone bothering it could turn an entire gymnasium into a giant fuel-air explosive. [/quote]

Now, just WHERE did you get that idea??


You're a scary person at times, man....

We know how to decode the meaning of these "well intentioned" people. What they are saying is :

"We say that guns are dangerous and we do not have to prove it.

Therefore we are going to pass a law that will remove all guns that belong to honest, law-abiding citizens. This way, when a criminal or a loony menaces them with a gun, honest people will not be tempted to defend themselves.

This is the best way we have found to ensure the ultimate PC behavior towards armed criminals."

To take advantage of the killing of unarmed innocents, by an armed criminal, to decree that all innocents must be disarmed, shows utter contempt for the facts and for the intelligence of the American citizens. It is the final proof of a politically criminal mind. It is an insult to decent citizens.

This has bi-partisian and NRA support.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267620,00.html

Piper

I don,t think you understand HOW carburators work, they REQUIRE a NEGATIVE pressure (SUCTION) under the venturie to EFFICENTLY FLOW and MIX fuel with the air flow, yes a blow thru application will work (BARELY) but not to NEARLY the same efficiency that a SUCKING or PULLING thru of the air would promote,and that would as Im sure you know tend to be more difficult to accheive as a fuel/air mix would tend to pass thru the impeller and be harder to isolate from a potential ignition source

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question377.htm

There is no doubt that trying to remove guns from criminal or insane hands makes more sense than disarming "wholesale" all law-abiding and mentally healthy citizens.

True, it requires a negative pressure in the venturi.

However, I do not think that we are here to give ideas to criminal minds for the development of more efficient systems...

Although I have some misgivings about this, it is probably the best we can hope for under the circumstances.

On the federal form you fill out for a gun purchase, in addition to being asked if you've ever been adjudicated mentally incompetent, it also asks if you are addicted to drugs or alcohol. So what's next, a national registry of alcoholics and drug addicts? Come to think of it, I believe these addictions are considered mental illnesses under DSM IV, that I wrote about in another post. How many crimes are committed by druggies either because of or to support their habit?

Where will it stop, or won't it?

Paul