VT shootings, GOA alert- US House bill 297

[NineseveN]

My only issue is that if Cho's records accurately reflected that he had been adjudicated mentally unstable he would have been turned down...

And this would have stopped what, exactly? Cho was mentally ill, he was going to do this no matter what. The fact that he had a gun or was able to buy guns had no bearing on his intent to commit this crime. That's obvious from his manifesto and other such things. Had he been turned down for a gun (or knew of the law that would have disqualified him), what was to stop him from setting people on fire, or becoming a serial rapist/killer, or poisoning everyone, or building a bomb?

You see, you’re stopping at the point to where your argument makes sense (and make no mistake, it does, if and only if you stop there). Continue the thought...how would this NICS expansion stopped him from killing people? You see, when you focus on the fact that he was able to buy a gun, you put the focus on the gun and the use/availability of it, and that's not where it belongs.

If you want to support a bill that has mental health implications, why not fight for one that actually serves to facilitate TREATMENT these people and STOPS the or inhibits the driving forces that compel them to do such things?

The gun is not the problem, the illness is. We do a severe disservice to ourselves when we allow anyone to frame the discussion as a problem with the fact that he got and used firearms.

Would it mean some hassle for some people, probably, but it is only a matter of ensuring that data that is currently required being properly supplied to the authorities.

This bill has no real practical benefit in reality, personally, I don't make a habit of supporting any legally forced "hassle" for a free people, especially when it serve no real purpose other than to make people feel good. This expansion would not have saved those 32 people, where there's a will, there's a way. The way is not the problem, it's the will that we must focus on.


But if that’s your only problem with it, then I can see why you haven’t taken the GOA’s assertions apart and countered them.

[billamj]

And this would have stopped what, exactly? Cho was mentally ill, he was going to do this no matter what. The fact that he had a gun or was able to buy guns had no bearing on his intent to commit this crime. That's obvious from his manifesto and other such things. Had he been turned down for a gun (or knew of the law that would have disqualified him), what was to stop him from setting people on fire, or becoming a serial rapist/killer, or poisoning everyone, or building a bomb?

Since, just like you and I, he had to fill out the requisite forms, he had to have known that he was disqualified. Having said that we already know that he did not have a rational mind. The system failed because he was not flagged when the NICS check ran. The reason that he was not flagged is because the adjudication was not properly reported. Would that have stopped him from commiting some other violent crime, not in the least but he also wouldn't have been able to commit a crime that makes people look at you and I like we have three heads.

You see, you’re stopping at the point to where your argument makes sense (and make no mistake, it does, if and only if you stop there). Continue the thought...how would this NICS expansion stopped him from killing people? You see, when you focus on the fact that he was able to buy a gun, you put the focus on the gun and the use/availability of it, and that's not where it belongs.

See above...

If you want to support a bill that has mental health implications, why not fight for one that actually serves to facilitate TREATMENT these people and STOPS the or inhibits the driving forces that compel them to do such things?

Because thanks to LBJ and the Dems of the 60's that is left strictly to the states and that is overseen in a very PC manner. Beyond being absurd they've made it virtually impossible to keep these people in the types of hospitals where they need to be.

The gun is not the problem, the illness is. We do a severe disservice to ourselves when we allow anyone to frame the discussion as a problem with the fact that he got and used firearms.

No argument.

This bill has no real practical benefit in reality, personally, I don't make a habit of supporting any legally forced "hassle" for a free people, especially when it serve no real purpose other than to make people feel good. This expansion would not have saved those 32 people, where there's a will, there's a way. The way is not the problem, it's the will that we must focus on.

Because it is only a matter of enforcing the states to live by what they are already required to do. If it were a totally new requirement I would probably be more upset with it but since it is enforcing a current requirement...

[T Durdin]

I put this out there, people can make what they want of it.

But, consider this, the federal government is supposed to be limited in the scope of it's powers by the constitution to regulate interstate commerce. All other powers not enumerated in the constitution fall to the states and the people.

A weapon is already "imported" to the state where you reside, you go to by it, how can a body who's only power is to regulate interstate commerce mandate who can then buy this weapon? Constitutionally it is the state or the people that should have the power to make this decision. Not a mandate from the Feds.

[NineseveN]

Since, just like you and I, he had to fill out the requisite forms, he had to have known that he was disqualified. Having said that we already know that he did not have a rational mind. The system failed because he was not flagged when the NICS check ran. The reason that he was not flagged is because the adjudication was not properly reported. Would that have stopped him from commiting some other violent crime, not in the least but he also wouldn't have been able to commit a crime that makes people look at you and I like we have three heads.

I kind of figured that's where you were going with this. Forgive for using this discussion as a sounding board on composing some letters on this subject. I was waiting for you to raise this point so that I could try and articulate the following without jumping the gun on you. Keep in mind, this isn't necessarily directly at you personally.



I think that the reason why we see some normally pro-gun rights people supporting the notion that the background check needs to be solidified isn't so much that they think it would have or will actually accomplish the task of reducing or eliminating mass killings; they know better. A potential killer that had sever mental issues is not deterred by obstacles, if they cannot get a firearm, they'll poison, rape, burn, bomb or stab and mutilate their victims All of these things, mass killings with firearms have the same common thread, a mentally ill person seething with rage that is compelled by their disease or condition to act these feelings out on numerous victims.

So no, pro-gun people aren't supporting this because it will actually do anything tangible, they're supporting it because they're truly tired of being vilified every time a mentally unhinged person goes on a killing spree with a gun. When somebody murders a lot of people with a firearm, the lawmakers and anti-gun groups are always scrambling immediately afterwards to take away the guns owned by the people that didn't do anything. As a gun owner, I can speak to feeling this way, I'm tired of it too. I own guns, I don't murder people, but my rights and my hobby are put under a serious threat every time someone decides to break the law and use a firearm to do so.

The pro-gun supporters, whether they've acknowledged it to themselves or not, would much rather Cho have used a bomb, or poison, anything other than a firearm, so they're current legislative support is based on the presumption that somehow, if the next Cho uses a bomb or kills 32 students with a knife in a serial killing spree, that they're rights and image as firearms owners won't be tainted with a stigma that comes after constant barrage of attacks from anti-gun groups and the media screaming that guns are the problem. I am personally not willing to give the government more power just to make someone else feel good. The problem is that 32 people died at the hands of a mentally ill person, it really doesn't matter how how he did it.

To my fellow gun owners and the NRA, I implore you not to sell out on the issue of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms so that we can feel better about owning guns, it’s just not right.

[billamj]

I put this out there, people can make what they want of it.

But, consider this, the federal government is supposed to be limited in the scope of it's powers by the constitution to regulate interstate commerce. All other powers not enumerated in the constitution fall to the states and the people.

A weapon is already "imported" to the state where you reside, you go to by it, how can a body who's only power is to regulate interstate commerce mandate who can then buy this weapon? Constitutionally it is the state or the people that should have the power to make this decision. Not a mandate from the Feds.

Great argument, but that is more relevant to 1968 than today. Our biggest problem today is that so many bills were passed when we did not have the incredible ability to communicate that we have today. Many of the horses are already out of the barn and with the way people are there is no way that we will be able to get them all back in. Does that mean I think that we should give up hope? Not even a little but we do need to take it one step at a time.

[billamj]

I kind of figured that's where you were going with this. Forgive for using this discussion as a sounding board on composing some letters on this subject. I was waiting for you to raise this point so that I could try and articulate the following without jumping the gun on you. Keep in mind, this isn't necessarily directly at you personally.



I think that the reason why we see some normally pro-gun rights people supporting the notion that the background check needs to be solidified isn't so much that they think it would have or will actually accomplish the task of reducing or eliminating mass killings; they know better. A potential killer that had sever mental issues is not deterred by obstacles, if they cannot get a firearm, they'll poison, rape, burn, bomb or stab and mutilate their victims All of these things, mass killings with firearms have the same common thread, a mentally ill person seething with rage that is compelled by their disease or condition to act these feelings out on numerous victims.

So no, pro-gun people aren't supporting this because it will actually do anything tangible, they're supporting it because they're truly tired of being vilified every time a mentally unhinged person goes on a killing spree with a gun. When somebody murders a lot of people with a firearm, the lawmakers and anti-gun groups are always scrambling immediately afterwards to take away the guns owned by the people that didn't do anything. As a gun owner, I can speak to feeling this way, I'm tired of it too. I own guns, I don't murder people, but my rights and my hobby are put under a serious threat every time someone decides to break the law and use a firearm to do so.

The pro-gun supporters, whether they've acknowledged it to themselves or not, would much rather Cho have used a bomb, or poison, anything other than a firearm, so they're current legislative support is based on the presumption that somehow, if the next Cho uses a bomb or kills 32 students with a knife in a serial killing spree, that they're rights and image as firearms owners won't be tainted with a stigma that comes after constant barrage of attacks from anti-gun groups and the media screaming that guns are the problem. I am personally not willing to give the government more power just to make someone else feel good. The problem is that 32 people died at the hands of a mentally ill person, it really doesn't matter how how he did it.

To my fellow gun owners and the NRA, I implore you not to sell out on the issue of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms so that we can feel better about owning guns, it’s just not right.

I would be utterly thrilled if we could go back to the time when we could adjudicate someone as mentally ill and be assured that they would have a clean place to be taken care of. A place where they could be treated for their condition and after a certain period of time/treatment they could once again become productive members of society. So many lives of innocents, as well as the individuals themselves, would be saved that it seems a very worthwhile goal to work toward. Unfortunately, I live in the present and that is not available to us. Again, if this were a new requirement then I would have issues however since this is already a requirement of existing law this is a do nothing bill. Something for dingel bell and mccarthy to stick their names on, take home and say "Look what I did" to the sheep of their districts. Do nothing bills do not scare me.

[NineseveN]

Again, I will ask, how would this stop a mentally insane person from acting out in their anger and killing people? If it doesn't then the law itself is useless (the whole thing, NOT just the improvement).

How does this stop mentally insane people from killing others? Not just with guns specifically, how does it stop them from bombing, stabbing, poisoning, burning, strangling or whatever? If it doesn't, the bill and the law it improves is nothing more than a feel good law. You'll either have to admit that or show how it stops this kind of thing.


Also, there's no true "litmus test" where you can ensure a patient is positive for a form of certain mental illnesses. These "doctors" often err on the safe side, which means people get committed that don't necessarily need to be and then released. But you're okay with that, because it means that we won't look bad when the next nut job shoots up a school. I'm sorry, but that's unacceptable. neither your rights nor my rights are more important than someone else's, I reject giving the government power to take away anyone else's rights, even if by accident, coincidence of circumstance, especially when the measure itself serves no other purpose than to make people feel better.




We may have to agree to disagree.

[JDC]

I think the best place to put are money is in the nra. Don't waste time with alot of other small organizations. The NRA is the one with the power to preserve our rights as gun owners.

[awkx]

If the NRA wants to push this bill through, I sincerely hope that they are going to demand something in return. Like killing the Lautenberg amendment and requiring a fair and speedy remedy to "unprohibit" a person who is no longer violent or mentally incapacitated.

[T Durdin]

I think the best place to put are money is in the nra. Don't waste time with alot of other small organizations. The NRA is the one with the power to preserve our rights as gun owners.

-JDC

I'd just like to reply that GOA, while smaller than the NRA, is a vital resource for gun owner's today. They have gone to bat for so many people who the NRA never spoke up for.

Most politicians are fools who only serve their own interests and want to appear to be doing something, so they can stay in their cushy high paying positions. They fear the overwhelming response of GOA members when they attempt fool hardy or ill considered legislative measures.

I am an NRA member, and member of a lot of pro-2nd Amend. organizations, and I support the 2nd by voting pro-2nd, being a vocal opponent of unreasonable gun control and by financially supporting these organizations. And I ain't some rich guy. I only make $20-24,000 but I always make sure to support all the groups whose efforts support me as a sportsman and gun owner.

I wouldn't presume to tell anyone what to do or think, but I ask you take a closer look at what they do before discounting them.http://www.gunowners.org

Unfortunately the NRA has caved in to political pressure over the years and has let us down on some key issues. It is our duty to remind them and our servants in the Gov. that the second amendment is about more than just owning guns for hunting, it is about a citizens right to confront any aggressor foreign or domestic with the forces necessary to secure the health and well being of their families, themselves and their property.