I'm self-employed, but I remember when a portion of my paycheck was missing every week--it sucked but of course, those working for a paycheck have zero choice in the matterThe Constitution: Amendments 11-27 | National Archives
www.archives.gov
I'm gonna go ahead and trust the national archives over Wikipedia if you don't mind
There may be a trade-off at some point. A required psych exam in order to possess a firearm. In such a scenario, you would still be permitted to have a gun, but you'd have to demonstrate (to the practical extent possible) that you aren't crazy.
Neat-O
To be brief, as I'm getting tired of back and forth quoting, from a mental health perspective, and therefore some people's opinion that certain other shouldn't have guns, I don't see how wearing knives makes one riskier than applying death and dismemberment for fun. That's it. I'm with you on "where's the line" and how it's odd the line is blurry at best
Uh ,
I know im not swaying anyome with that... But thats not my intent with the post...
I'll take a stab at the dilemma your proposing. To me its simple, I would be more open to regulations if the regulations were not based on a prohibition model.
You cannot legislate personal responsibility. Period. This is a purely factual statement.
Sure you can, we are all held responsible to follow the laws. You cannot legislate common sense but you can make someone accountable to any law. I don't really care how we philosophically look at the subject, as long as the law doesn't affect the lawful person.
False - the left doesn't agree "no one" should have a gun, they agree that their enforcers in government should have guns, and their private security should have guns, but the common American not have guns.
My thoughts? This post is a total wreck.The knife-guy thread got locked. For good reason, it was going nowhere : https://www.northwestfirearms.com/t...igh-speed-low-friction-operator.377836/page-3
On page 3 of that thread, @gmerkt made an interesting comment. I hope I understood it correctly.
There is no simple solution to the quandary faced by an armed citizenry that wants minimal or no infringement on their right to arms, but also wants a way to prevent crazy people from shooting up schools.
Setting:
A member posted a picture of an individual wearing knives & stuff.
Other members responded.
The majority of responses were derisive.
Then gmerkt cut us with a razor.
He quoted three responses, then, if I understand him correctly, he succinctly asked, "Which is it? What exactly do you want?"
IMO, this is an opportunity to reconcile your preferences for minimal infringement on your right to arms, with your desire, if you have one, to prevent crazy people from being empowered with the same rights you have.
Importantly, this is not about the knife guy in the other thread. We don't know anything about that guy actually.
This is more about whether some line should exist, and how to draw it, and where it is drawn.
Obviously, the Brady Bill and its ancillary legislation represent a societal attempt to draw that line. And we know that this effort has been unsuccessful, due to lack of consistent and comprehensive record keeping, and to lack of prosecution of denials and straw purchases, and to an absence of an effective system for identifying and cataloguing real mental illness threats.
We also know that current policy is trending towards Universal Background Check requirements that encompass non-dealer transactions, and we generally believe that this latest development will not help the overall objective at all, because there is no point of enforcement, and because people who ignore laws will ignore this law. We also don't like UBC because it creates a defacto registry. But it is still being rammed down our throats, primarily because crazy people and criminals are still shooting up our society.
Challenge: address gmerkt's comment.
If I read him correctly, possible responses span a spectrum: from zero restrictions and just live with the outcome, to massive restrictions and their side effects.
Don't attack people. Attack the problem. (edit: deleted unnecessary phrase here)
Thanks to gmerkt. (If I understood him correctly.)
Below is the piece of gmerkt's reply to the earlier thread, that I am referring to in this thread:
I'll go first.
It seems like FIX NICS, and NO to universal background checks, may be a reasonable approach to managing an obvious problem, but I'm only okay with this approach if we simultaneously improve management of crime and mental illness.
My personal view is that Brady/NICS background checks are an unnecessary infringement in a society that effectively manages crime and mental illness.
We presently are not that society. We need to get there.
My goal would be to make Brady/NICS work now, and spend ~20 years effectively improving management of crime and mental illness, and then scale back or eliminate background check requirements after we bring crime and mental illness under more effective control.
I should say this: I am interested in solutions that are politically viable. I like the idea of nullifying Brady over night, but I don't think that is a politically viable solution.
For crime, the solutions are mostly governmental: we need to make our government much tougher on crime.
For mental illness, the solutions are shared IMO. As a society, we need to improve how we deal with obvious crazy people on a daily basis. A little less MYOB, a little more, "Hey, we need to collectively get ahead of this person before they shoot our school up." With regard to gov't, we need to cause our government to build much larger infrastructure than we currently have for effectively dealing with crazy people. Prisons and homelessness and ignoring obvious warning signs, are not getting the job done.
I have read a lot of late 18th century American history lately. The term "lunaticks" is not absent in their discourse and laws. The idea of control of mental illness is not new in America.
Your thoughts?
