AirWorthy99 wrote:

Why do you have to make the pain and suffering of those parents political? the death of children?

Even if we did what you say, this won't stop. Why can't we ask why do people commit such atrocious and heinous killings first? then we talk about political solutions.

There is no political swift solution to this. If you think there is you are delusional. Stop making everything about politics and dividing people, probably this is what has made this worse.

This is very much a political issue as your political leaders are the ones who can help stop this insanity. Had your political leaders stepped up to the plate after Sandy Hook, this tragedy could have very well been prevented just as political leaders every where else have done. But no, here we are again because your political leaders have done nothing and these children and their parents have paid the price for it.

The entire mess the US is in right now is because of politics through this bizarre belief that every one has the right to own an 'effin gun. Geezus.

bpatus297 wrote:

So, using your logic there should be very little gun crime in cities and states with very strict gun laws and regulations.

That is utter nonsense and you know it. We have open borders in this country, if one state allows guns to be sold like popcorn, the next state over has no way to keep guns out of the hands of anybody who has bus fare to get across the border.

This is the same as with TriJets' use of anecdotal tales as an argument for lax gun control is spite of him being reminded of the fact that he has been informed that the use of anecdotal evidence in a debate is universally considered a logical fallacy.

The gun nut lobby is dishonest ie: lacking in ethics.

Vintage wrote:

ACDC8 wrote:

I couldn't even begin to imagine what these parents were going through - and yet there are those who will continue to deflect from the actual problem and defend a 231 year old piece of paper over the lives of children and will continue to deflect common sense when the next group of parents are forced to go through the same thing, and the next group, and the next group.

It isn't the 231 year old piece of paper that's the problem, it's the fact that our Supreme Court is illiterate.
The 2nd amendment clearly includes the term "a well regulated militia", and it is obvious that our "well regulated militia" is out of control.
But the SC ignores the term "well regulated militia" as if it doesn't exist.

The US has had and continues to have issues to this day, but that "231 year old piece of paper" (it will actually be 234 years old on June 21st since it was ratified on June 21, 1788) has served us pretty well. Is it perfect, no, but its not too shabby. It was amended to fix some issues, but the issues it fixed were prevalent around the world at the time it was written. I find it funny you call SCOTUS justices illiterate since they are all highly educated and far from illiterate, but since they don't share you views, I guess you fell its right to insult them. The thing about the militia has been studied and debated ad nauseum and is not worth rehashing, but you are wrong on what you think it means according to the "illiterate" Supreme Court.

ACDC8 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

So, using your logic there should be very little gun crime in cities and states with very strict gun laws and regulations.

Whats the point of one State having strict restrictions when the next State over is a free for all and you can just bring your guns across the Country nilly willy like the shooting in Laguna Woods not even 2 weeks ago?

So then with he same logic, what's the point of banning guns when there are already 300-400 million in the US?

Vintage wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

So, using your logic there should be very little gun crime in cities and states with very strict gun laws and regulations.

That is utter nonsense and you know it. We have open borders in this country, if one state allows guns to be sold like popcorn, the next state over has no way to keep guns out of the hands of anybody who has bus fare to get across the border.

This is the same as with TriJets' use of anecdotal tales as an argument for lax gun control is spite of him being reminded of the fact that he has been informed that the use of anecdotal evidence in a debate is universally considered a logical fallacy.

The gun nut lobby is dishonest ie: lacking in ethics.

It is not nonsense, and no I don't know it. Indiana is not selling guns like popcorn, they are following all applicable federal and state laws. If they are not, the gun stores and FFLs should be dealt with accordingly. I personally believe the penalties should be extremely severe for gun stores and FFLs who are dirty.

BTW, I am not in the gun nut category. I hate that in the threads on A net I have to constantly repeat myself, but I am for common sense solutions. Some gun regulations are part of the solution, but they are not an end all be all solution. There are many other facets to this issue, but we can't talk about them since one side is fixated on banning guns.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Frustrated onlookers urged police officers to charge into the Texas elementary school where a gunman’s rampage killed 19 children and two teachers, witnesses said Wednesday, as investigators worked to track the massacre that lasted upwards of 40 minutes and ended when the 18-year-old shooter was killed by a Border Patrol team.

“Go in there! Go in there!” nearby women shouted at the officers soon after the attack began, said Juan Carranza, 24, who saw the scene from outside his house, across the street from Robb Elementary School in the close-knit town of Uvalde. Carranza said the officers did not go in.

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1529640867849551872

https://apnews.com/article/uvalde-texas ... 83df6e4683

This is the part that is the most troubling. Why weren't they in pursuit? They had fired already on the suspect.

The solutions are political, you simply want to pretend it isn’t because your politicians are the guilty ones.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

ACDC8 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

I just saw the video of the parents outside of the school whilst the shooter was inside killing their kids

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyXtymq-A6w


Police was more concerned for the parents outside than going in and taking down that ----- that was inside killing kids for almost an hour nonstop.

If you truly cared about these kids, watch that video. It has caused me pain, personally. Since I can relate having children in elementary school.

I couldn't even begin to imagine what these parents were going through - and yet there are those who will continue to deflect from the actual problem and defend a 231 year old piece of paper over the lives of children and will continue to deflect common sense when the next group of parents are forced to go through the same thing, and the next group, and the next group.

Why do you have to make the pain and suffering of those parents political? the death of children?

Even if we did what you say, this won't stop. Why can't we ask why do people commit such atrocious and heinous killings first? then we talk about political solutions.

There is no political swift solution to this. If you think there is you are delusional. Stop making everything about politics and dividing people, probably this is what has made this worse.

ACDC8 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

I just saw the video of the parents outside of the school whilst the shooter was inside killing their kids

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyXtymq-A6w


Police was more concerned for the parents outside than going in and taking down that ----- that was inside killing kids for almost an hour nonstop.

If you truly cared about these kids, watch that video. It has caused me pain, personally. Since I can relate having children in elementary school.

I couldn't even begin to imagine what these parents were going through - and yet there are those who will continue to deflect from the actual problem and defend a 231 year old piece of paper over the lives of children and will continue to deflect common sense when the next group of parents are forced to go through the same thing, and the next group, and the next group.

The 231 year old piece of paper is what prevents us from becoming North Korea. Our rights are important to us, and the second people decide to disregard the Constitution, it opens the door for any number of abuses.

TriJets wrote:

ACDC8 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

I just saw the video of the parents outside of the school whilst the shooter was inside killing their kids

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyXtymq-A6w


Police was more concerned for the parents outside than going in and taking down that ----- that was inside killing kids for almost an hour nonstop.

If you truly cared about these kids, watch that video. It has caused me pain, personally. Since I can relate having children in elementary school.

I couldn't even begin to imagine what these parents were going through - and yet there are those who will continue to deflect from the actual problem and defend a 231 year old piece of paper over the lives of children and will continue to deflect common sense when the next group of parents are forced to go through the same thing, and the next group, and the next group.

The 231 year old piece of paper is what prevents us from becoming North Korea. Our rights are important to us, and the second people decide to disregard the Constitution, it opens the door for any number of abuses.

A piece of paper that has been and can be amended. Other countries manage such fundamental changes quite simply by vote.
Would help if the US didn't have such crazily polarised views these days I admit that.

TriJets wrote:

it opens the door for any number of abuses

Just like the government of the day being able to stack the Supreme Court in their favour? Ah yes very balanced and "modern".
That gives and takes away rights.

When pressed on solutions about the Guns and issues. Ted Cruz runs away. He shed Crocodile tears for the parents ,but can't actually answer very tough questions. Of course he will be in Houston this weekend to extol the benefits of Gun Sales for those pushing them.

https://twitter.com/malonebarry/status/ ... 4996630528

M564038 wrote:

The solutions are political, you simply want to pretend it isn’t because your politicians are the guilty ones.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

ACDC8 wrote:

I couldn't even begin to imagine what these parents were going through - and yet there are those who will continue to deflect from the actual problem and defend a 231 year old piece of paper over the lives of children and will continue to deflect common sense when the next group of parents are forced to go through the same thing, and the next group, and the next group.

Why do you have to make the pain and suffering of those parents political? the death of children?

Even if we did what you say, this won't stop. Why can't we ask why do people commit such atrocious and heinous killings first? then we talk about political solutions.

There is no political swift solution to this. If you think there is you are delusional. Stop making everything about politics and dividing people, probably this is what has made this worse.

No is not, despite making many people feel as they are.

The school is a government building, protected by government agents who failed all the way to secure those children. Literally government agents were outside not going in whilst kids where being slaughtered. Parents begged for entry but were refused whilst listening to their children die.

That's a failure of politics, government in large scale, not because of a 231 year old law, but because they couldn't do the basic things such as protecting those who needed protecting in that building and the other buildings.

You want to feel good saying a law needs to be amendment, that's fine, but it won't fix evil, won't fix bad people from becoming good all of the sudden.

Missing the point completely, there is a problem in society not caused by a 231 year old document, its within the society on its core. The constitution and laws have existed for ever, like I mentioned, 50's, 60's, 70's 80's you did not see these sort of things happen constantly like they have been since the late 90's.

Society as a whole is rotten, and mental health issues have been ignored by all the politicians you believe have the solution.

bpatus297 wrote:

ACDC8 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

So, using your logic there should be very little gun crime in cities and states with very strict gun laws and regulations.

Whats the point of one State having strict restrictions when the next State over is a free for all and you can just bring your guns across the Country nilly willy like the shooting in Laguna Woods not even 2 weeks ago?

So then with he same logic, what's the point of banning guns when there are already 300-400 million in the US?

Regulation.

As in "well-regulated militia"

AirWorthy99 wrote:

No is not, despite making many people feel as they are.

The school is a government building, protected by government agents who failed all the way to secure those children. Literally government agents were outside not going in whilst kids where being slaughtered. Parents begged for entry but were refused whilst listening to their children die.

That's a failure of politics, government in large scale, not because of a 231 year old law, but because they couldn't do the basic things such as protecting those who needed protecting in that building and the other buildings.

Interesting. I didn't know the government had a mandate to protect schools with armed guards on a daily basis...
Of course, it's just another nice try at distracting from the real issue but this is, in fact, a systemic issue and this tragedy is only one more episode in a never ending saga of abject gun violence. You can try all you want to find different scapegoats for each different event but at the end of the day, the only common denominator between all of them and the only differentiator between the US where this keeps happening and the rest of the World where it doesn't is the unfettered access to guns.

Criminals exist everywhere. Mentally ill people exist everywhere. People with violent tendencies exist everywhere. Schools with no armed guards or teachers are the norm everywhere... Yet this only happens in the US.

You can blame the police all you want but at the end of the day, the real underlying issue is obvious to anyone with half a brain.

You want to feel good saying a law needs to be amendment, that's fine, but it won't fix evil, won't fix bad people from becoming good all of the sudden.

Another tired old argument for those who would rather tolerate repetitive child murder than any effort at gun control... And another logical fallacy to boot.
'Criminals don't obey the laws so laws are useless'.
Fine. Let's get rid of them all and start the Purge then.

Missing the point completely, there is a problem in society not caused by a 231 year old document, its within the society on its core. The constitution and laws have existed for ever, like I mentioned, 50's, 60's, 70's 80's you did not see these sort of things happen constantly like they have been since the late 90's.

Society as a whole is rotten, and mental health issues have been ignored by all the politicians you believe have the solution.

Talk about missing the point... What are your solutions for fixing this 'rotten' society then? I can't see gun avocates pushing for any real reform on mental health either.
Not their problem I suppose. So just a convenient way to pass the hot potato along?

At the end of the day, all we hear is the same litany of tired old excuses meant to shift the blame to anything but the obvious culprit in an effort to keep things exactly as they are.

Even hardened alcoholics don't live in as much denial.

Hey, if it happens often enough, people will get bored with it and stop caring, right? Conservative America's utopia...

Francoflier wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

No is not, despite making many people feel as they are.

The school is a government building, protected by government agents who failed all the way to secure those children. Literally government agents were outside not going in whilst kids where being slaughtered. Parents begged for entry but were refused whilst listening to their children die.

That's a failure of politics, government in large scale, not because of a 231 year old law, but because they couldn't do the basic things such as protecting those who needed protecting in that building and the other buildings.

Interesting. I didn't know the government had a mandate to protect schools with armed guards on a daily basis...
Of course, it's just another nice try at distracting from the real issue but this is, in fact, a systemic issue and this tragedy is only one more episode in a never ending saga of abject gun violence. You can try all you want to find different scapegoats for each different event but at the end of the day, the only common denominator between all of them and the only differentiator between the US where this keeps happening and the rest of the World where it doesn't is the unfettered access to guns.

Criminals exist everywhere. Mentally ill people exist everywhere. People with violent tendencies exist everywhere. Schools with no armed guards or teachers are the norm everywhere... Yet this only happens in the US.

You can blame the police all you want but at the end of the day, the real underlying issue is obvious to anyone with half a brain.

You want to feel good saying a law needs to be amendment, that's fine, but it won't fix evil, won't fix bad people from becoming good all of the sudden.

Another tired old argument for those who would rather tolerate repetitive child murder than any effort at gun control... And another logical fallacy to boot.
'Criminals don't obey the laws so laws are useless'.
Fine. Let's get rid of them all and start the Purge then.

Missing the point completely, there is a problem in society not caused by a 231 year old document, its within the society on its core. The constitution and laws have existed for ever, like I mentioned, 50's, 60's, 70's 80's you did not see these sort of things happen constantly like they have been since the late 90's.

Society as a whole is rotten, and mental health issues have been ignored by all the politicians you believe have the solution.

Talk about missing the point... What are your solutions for fixing this 'rotten' society then? I can't see gun avocates pushing for any real reform on mental health either.
Not their problem I suppose. So just a convenient way to pass the hot potato along?

At the end of the day, all we hear is the same litany of tired old excuses meant to shift the blame to anything but the obvious culprit in an effort to keep things exactly as they are.

Even hardened alcoholics don't live in as much denial.

Hey, if it happens often enough, people will get bored with it and stop caring, right? Conservative America's utopia...

Its tiresome, same old same old debunked arguments.

You expect a political solution to a problem the government itself can't fix, you are telling me that we shouldn't trust the government with the security of children parents leave at government buildings, but you propose creating laws that the same government has to enforce in order to stop these tragedies.

Wherever you look, you will still think government is GOD and will be there to do as you like and prevent things that you believe are preventable only with a magic trick of changing laws.

Every time people die only when its caused by some crazy shooter you folks seem to have the solution. Whereas all the rest of cases where is not some crazy shooter you seem to ignore that and still point to your utopian dream of no guns.

1- Mass shooting innocent die, its the gun laws (Not mental health crisis)
2- mass shooting where innocent and gangs die, its society not criminals ( Chicago, not the enforcement of laws )
3- mass shooting where innocent die and its terrorism.. Well nothing we can do about it. (see NY subway a few weeks back)

That's the idea right?

And for all of those scenarios you got the right solution. They all have worked splendidly right?

Keep feeling good with your 'solutions', you know very well they won't be done, so you keep coming back to feel good every time people get killed. In the meantime real solutions which are easier to accomplish than a massive gun confiscation program by constitutional amendment, that's not possible right? but still lets keep insisting and blaming my political opponents.

bpatus297 wrote:

However, you and a lot on here, don't want to talk about anything other than banning guns. You also go on to insult and belittle anyone who defends the Constitution.

Correct me if I am wrong but was 2A not intended to provide for an armed militia able to help defend the republic from foreign invaders eg the English? I see no mention of anything else:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.."

The reason to allow people to bear arms is spelt out clearly: to defend the state. Somehow some people who claim to defend 2A actually wish to defend a non-existent 2A with an additional clause which might read as follows:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Being necessary to the security of citizens, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms for their defense, shall not be infringed."

art wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

However, you and a lot on here, don't want to talk about anything other than banning guns. You also go on to insult and belittle anyone who defends the Constitution.

Correct me if I am wrong but was 2A not intended to provide for an armed militia able to help defend the republic from foreign invaders eg the English? I see no mention of anything else:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.."

The reason to allow people to bear arms is spelt out clearly: to defend the state. Somehow some people who claim to defend 2A actually wish to defend a non-existent 2A with an additional clause which might read as follows:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Being necessary to the security of citizens, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms for their defense, shall not be infringed."

The SCOTUS has long held that the 2nd stayed that membership in a militia is not a prerequisite to gun ownership.

TriJets wrote:

ACDC8 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

I just saw the video of the parents outside of the school whilst the shooter was inside killing their kids

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyXtymq-A6w


Police was more concerned for the parents outside than going in and taking down that ----- that was inside killing kids for almost an hour nonstop.

If you truly cared about these kids, watch that video. It has caused me pain, personally. Since I can relate having children in elementary school.

I couldn't even begin to imagine what these parents were going through - and yet there are those who will continue to deflect from the actual problem and defend a 231 year old piece of paper over the lives of children and will continue to deflect common sense when the next group of parents are forced to go through the same thing, and the next group, and the next group.

The 231 year old piece of paper is what prevents us from becoming North Korea. Our rights are important to us, and the second people decide to disregard the Constitution, it opens the door for any number of abuses.

Obsessively following that 231 year old paper is what will turn USA into a western theocracy much like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and all the other countries that
re following Quran as strictly as the USA is following the 2nd amendment. Add the anti-abortions laws and the voting restrictions being implemented by some
southern states where the republicans are concerned with undesirable voting results and the USA is already making good progress towards theocracy.

Sweden is an old country and we have some laws that have a really old origin. One of the really old laws still in use is "Regeringsformen" (the law the regulates how
the government operates) and was first established in 1634 (almost 400 years ago) and is one of grundlagarna (sort of foundation laws).
It might be 400 years old but guess what? It has been changed many times. Adjusting old laws as the country evolves is how it is supposed to work but the gun fanatics are just
too mentally ill + too narrow-minded (=fanatic) to understand that.just like any other religious extremists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumen ... ment_(1634)
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regeringsformen

TriJets wrote:

The SCOTUS has long held that the 2nd stayed that membership in a militia is not a prerequisite to gun ownership.

Because they chose to ignore the wording of the 2nd amendment (the Constitution). That won't last forever.

art wrote:

Devotion to guns seems to provoke mental incapacity

...last night, Fox News, tried to shift blame on to the parents. Host Laura Ingraham strategically brought Andrew Pollack, the father of a Parkland victim who has previously argued that “guns didn’t kill my daughter, Democratic principles did,” on to her show.

“It’s the parents,” Pollack told Ingraham. “It’s your responsibility where you’re sending your children to school … You need to check where your kids go to school. You need to go back to school and see. Is there a single point of entry? Do you have guards at the school?”

He went on to suggest that it’s better for parents to take their kids out “of public school and put them in a private school because a lot of these private schools, they take security way more serious … Parents it’s your responsibility where you take your children.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ts-parents

Of course, what a simple solution. Because every family in America can afford to send their children to private schools

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

TriJets wrote:

ACDC8 wrote:

I couldn't even begin to imagine what these parents were going through - and yet there are those who will continue to deflect from the actual problem and defend a 231 year old piece of paper over the lives of children and will continue to deflect common sense when the next group of parents are forced to go through the same thing, and the next group, and the next group.

The 231 year old piece of paper is what prevents us from becoming North Korea. Our rights are important to us, and the second people decide to disregard the Constitution, it opens the door for any number of abuses.

Obsessively following that 231 year old paper is what will turn USA into a western theocracy much like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and all the other countries that
re following Quran as strictly as the USA is following the 2nd amendment. Add the anti-abortions laws and the voting restrictions being implemented by some
southern states where the republicans are concerned with undesirable voting results and the USA is already making good progress towards theocracy.

Sweden is an old country and we have some laws that have a really old origin. One of the really old laws still in use is "Regeringsformen" (the law the regulates how
the government operates) and was first established in 1634 (almost 400 years ago) and is one of grundlagarna (sort of foundation laws).
It might be 400 years old but guess what? It has been changed many times. Adjusting old laws as the country evolves is how it is supposed to work but the gun fanatics are just
too mentally ill + too narrow-minded (=fanatic) to understand that.just like any other religious extremists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumen ... ment_(1634)
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regeringsformen

Sure, there is a process to change the constitution, but with regard to the 2A only the extreme fringe wants to. The idea is horribly unpopular even with Democrats.

First time gun ownership hit record highs in 2021....the number of households that own a firearm went from 32% to 39% in just a few years. Half of first-time gun buyers in recent history have been women and 20% have been Black Americans. Gun ownership is not just something that conservatives value anymore.

(Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... e-pandemic )

The extreme left and those who are not from the US need to recognize that the guns are not going anywhere. Blanket calls for a 2A repeal only alienate an increasingly diverse spectrum of Americans. Instead, gun-control advocates need to focus on measures that actually have broad support like increased background checks and the like.

Vintage wrote:

TriJets wrote:

The SCOTUS has long held that the 2nd stayed that membership in a militia is not a prerequisite to gun ownership.

Because they chose to ignore the wording of the 2nd amendment (the Constitution). That won't last forever.

Nothing will last forever, but I am 100% confident that the 2A will remain intact at least through the end of the century. There's no support for changing it except for amongst the fringe left. Gun ownership is increasing rather than decreasing in this country and it isn't just the conservative white men buying the guns (see the link I posted above).

ER757 wrote:

Of course, what a simple solution. Because every family in America can afford to send their children to private schools

And the cost of private schools will go up a lot to fund the militias necessary to guard them. They are going to have to pay these militia types well, unless they just hire whatever riff raff that applies.

Vintage wrote:

ER757 wrote:

Of course, what a simple solution. Because every family in America can afford to send their children to private schools

And the cost of private schools will go up a lot to fund the militias necessary to guard them. They are going to have to pay these militia types well, unless they just hire whatever riff raff that applies.

I just really don't see a bunch of veterans standing in line to hold an AR at a private school for probably a meager amount of money. Seems like it would be a very boring job.

There's something about Americans that's just really violent and psychologically unstable, Canadians aren't dissimilar but definitely on a smaller scale.

I think it has a lot to do with the type of materialism and subconscious want of emulating pop culture, perhaps. This whole concept that everyone needs to be 'somebody'. The phrase 'do you know who I am?' is pretty commonly heard from people.

Add to that low level of physical health which has a direct impact on mental health, a social/political divide deeper than ever creating tensions, and what are you left with? Many people who think they're somebody, can't handle the reality of not being special, have fragile egos, unhealthy bodies that equal unhealthy minds which can't handle failure, raised around pop culture that strengthens all of these toxic traits and stereotypes, and an identity crisis pandemic. Add to that easy access to guns.

Just brainstorming. But the USA seems like a powder keg. Something needs to change.

Now, if the perp didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have murdered 18 people. However, many people in other countries have guns and mass shootings aren't a common occurrence, or don't occur at all. This is a uniquely American problem in the western world. Are guns part of the problem? Of course. But how is it that Americans have gotten so violent that slaughtering groups of innocent people and children has become a common event in the US?

I'm generally anti-gun. Nevertheless, if I was forced to live in the US, I'd carry.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Its tiresome, same old same old debunked arguments.

You expect a political solution to a problem the government itself can't fix, you are telling me that we shouldn't trust the government with the security of children parents leave at government buildings, but you propose creating laws that the same government has to enforce in order to stop these tragedies.

Debunked how? By who? The same old conservative hacks? Or by the rest of the World where gun control laws effectively reduce the incidence of gun violence?

You are equating two things that are absolutely and fundamentally different. It is evident that the government cannot and should not protect schools and children with armed guards. The very notion is ridiculous. Governments are, however, very efficient at regulating possession and use of many things such as guns. This is why they are the preferred option.

The idea with guns is to pre-emptively reduce ways in which gun attacks can happen, not to reduce their lethality once they do. There is a reason why seatbelts and airbags are mandated instead of expecting the government to open more emergency rooms and trauma centers.

Wherever you look, you will still think government is GOD and will be there to do as you like and prevent things that you believe are preventable only with a magic trick of changing laws.

What? Do you read what you write, or are you actually pushing the notion that governments are incapable of enacting and enforcing laws and regulations, which they effectively do all the time on just about everything?

The government that is able to regulate and enforce everything from strict building code, finances, just about anything that touches transportation in any way, the environment and what food dye and can or can't use in my birthday cake can not enforce gun control?
Ok then...

Every time people die only when its caused by some crazy shooter you folks seem to have the solution. Whereas all the rest of cases where is not some crazy shooter you seem to ignore that and still point to your utopian dream of no guns.

1- Mass shooting innocent die, its the gun laws (Not mental health crisis)
2- mass shooting where innocent and gangs die, its society not criminals ( Chicago, not the enforcement of laws )
3- mass shooting where innocent die and its terrorism.. Well nothing we can do about it. (see NY subway a few weeks back)

That's the idea right?

And for all of those scenarios you got the right solution. They all have worked splendidly right?

I honestly have no clue what point you are trying to make here. Stricter gun laws would work in reducing the incidence of all the above examples and no gun control proponent has ever said otherwise... You are confusing facts with the fantasy World you have made up in your head.
There are many facets and underlying issues with different kinds of gun violence, but there is only one things that unites them all: guns and their ubiquity..

Keep feeling good with your 'solutions', you know very well they won't be done, so you keep coming back to feel good every time people get killed. In the meantime real solutions which are easier to accomplish than a massive gun confiscation program by constitutional amendment, that's not possible right? but still lets keep insisting and blaming my political opponents.

Nobody is feeling good when they scream for more gun control. Some, on the other hand, seem to keep feeling good watching children die.
The solutions can evidently be implemented and can be effective. You just have to look at he rest of the World for evidence thereof.
Also, no one is talking about a 'massive gun confiscation program'.

Pray tell: what are the 'real solutions which are easier to accomplish'? I'm curious.

As for 'political opponents', two things:
First of all, a vast majority of American want to see gun control laws enacted. Second, it just so happens that there is only one side of the political spectrum that unilaterally, perennially and pathetically deflects and opposes any change when it comes to those universally demanded gun control measures...
It's hard to not see it as a political topic.

Francoflier wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Its tiresome, same old same old debunked arguments.

You expect a political solution to a problem the government itself can't fix, you are telling me that we shouldn't trust the government with the security of children parents leave at government buildings, but you propose creating laws that the same government has to enforce in order to stop these tragedies.

Debunked how? By who? The same old conservative hacks? Or by the rest of the World where gun control laws effectively reduce the incidence of gun violence?

You are equating two things that are absolutely and fundamentally different. It is evident that the government cannot and should not protect schools and children with armed guards. The very notion is ridiculous. Governments are, however, very efficient at regulating possession and use of many things such as guns. This is why they are the preferred option.

The idea with guns is to pre-emptively reduce ways in which gun attacks can happen, not to reduce their lethality once they do. There is a reason why seatbelts and airbags are mandated instead of expecting the government to open more emergency rooms and trauma centers.

Wherever you look, you will still think government is GOD and will be there to do as you like and prevent things that you believe are preventable only with a magic trick of changing laws.

What? Do you read what you write, or are you actually pushing the notion that governments are incapable of enacting and enforcing laws and regulations, which they effectively do all the time on just about everything?

The government that is able to regulate and enforce everything from strict building code, finances, just about anything that touches transportation in any way, the environment and what food dye and can or can't use in my birthday cake can not enforce gun control?
Ok then...

Every time people die only when its caused by some crazy shooter you folks seem to have the solution. Whereas all the rest of cases where is not some crazy shooter you seem to ignore that and still point to your utopian dream of no guns.

1- Mass shooting innocent die, its the gun laws (Not mental health crisis)
2- mass shooting where innocent and gangs die, its society not criminals ( Chicago, not the enforcement of laws )
3- mass shooting where innocent die and its terrorism.. Well nothing we can do about it. (see NY subway a few weeks back)

That's the idea right?

And for all of those scenarios you got the right solution. They all have worked splendidly right?

I honestly have no clue what point you are trying to make here. Stricter gun laws would work in reducing the incidence of all the above examples and no gun control proponent has ever said otherwise... You are confusing facts with the fantasy World you have made up in your head.
There are many facets and underlying issues with different kinds of gun violence, but there is only one things that unites them all: guns and their ubiquity..

Keep feeling good with your 'solutions', you know very well they won't be done, so you keep coming back to feel good every time people get killed. In the meantime real solutions which are easier to accomplish than a massive gun confiscation program by constitutional amendment, that's not possible right? but still lets keep insisting and blaming my political opponents.

Nobody is feeling good when they scream for more gun control. Some, on the other hand, seem to keep feeling good watching children die.
The solutions can evidently be implemented and can be effective. You just have to look at he rest of the World for evidence thereof.
Also, no one is talking about a 'massive gun confiscation program'.

Pray tell: what are the 'real solutions which are easier to accomplish'? I'm curious.

As for 'political opponents', two things:
First of all, a vast majority of American want to see gun control laws enacted. Second, it just so happens that there is only one side of the political spectrum that unilaterally, perennially and pathetically deflects and opposes any change when it comes to those universally demanded gun control measures...
It's hard to not see it as a political topic.

Debunked by reality, by many cases in the US where gun laws are strict. By human nature. Laws won't stop evil. Ever.

Yes, like I mentioned back in other pages, I said, sensible gun laws that would restrict people with mental health issues from owning a gun. That would be a good idea to look at. But to completely ban guns, is not going to happen.

And talking about mental health, and societal issues which can be much better addressed by society and government can help.

You can't put laws against evil, and bad people. They will do it with or without no laws. You seem to be from Europe. I am pretty sure Hitler violated many of his own laws when he sent people to the gas chambers, right? did he care about the laws? did Mao care when he starved to death millions of his own people? Stalin?

Evil people, bad people, sick people don't give a two about laws. You start by going and tackling the societal issues. Everything is not about politics, and dividing populations and making them look as if they are bad just because don't agree with you only makes worse the problem.

Francoflier wrote:

What? Do you read what you write, or are you actually pushing the notion that governments are incapable of enacting and enforcing laws and regulations, which they effectively do all the time on just about everything?

Yes its incapable of stopping evil when they want to carry out evil acts. If not there would be zero murders. Government is not omnipresent in 330 million people. You need to trust the people to actually be good and do what's right. Government can't ever enforce its laws on everyone. If you do, then you are delusional.

art wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

However, you and a lot on here, don't want to talk about anything other than banning guns. You also go on to insult and belittle anyone who defends the Constitution.

Correct me if I am wrong but was 2A not intended to provide for an armed militia able to help defend the republic from foreign invaders eg the English? I see no mention of anything else:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.."

The reason to allow people to bear arms is spelt out clearly: to defend the state. Somehow some people who claim to defend 2A actually wish to defend a non-existent 2A with an additional clause which might read as follows:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Being necessary to the security of citizens, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms for their defense, shall not be infringed."

I am not sure what you are asking. Defense of the country was part of it. Not everyone wanted the Federal Gov to create a standing army. Some wanted to make sure the states could form their own armies for their defense. The 2A was also important to keep the Federal Gov in check, as well as for individuals to protect themselves. You have to look at the writings of all of the founding fathers (for and against) to understand their thinking.

TriJets wrote:

art wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

However, you and a lot on here, don't want to talk about anything other than banning guns. You also go on to insult and belittle anyone who defends the Constitution.

Correct me if I am wrong but was 2A not intended to provide for an armed militia able to help defend the republic from foreign invaders eg the English? I see no mention of anything else:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.."

The reason to allow people to bear arms is spelt out clearly: to defend the state. Somehow some people who claim to defend 2A actually wish to defend a non-existent 2A with an additional clause which might read as follows:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Being necessary to the security of citizens, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms for their defense, shall not be infringed."

The SCOTUS has long held that the 2nd stayed that membership in a militia is not a prerequisite to gun ownership.

A well regulated militia was also generally understood to be a group of people capable of fighting for a common cause, as in the citizens of a state or country.

bpatus297 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

art wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong but was 2A not intended to provide for an armed militia able to help defend the republic from foreign invaders eg the English? I see no mention of anything else:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.."

The reason to allow people to bear arms is spelt out clearly: to defend the state. Somehow some people who claim to defend 2A actually wish to defend a non-existent 2A with an additional clause which might read as follows:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Being necessary to the security of citizens, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms for their defense, shall not be infringed."

The SCOTUS has long held that the 2nd stayed that membership in a militia is not a prerequisite to gun ownership.

A well regulated militia was also generally understood to be a group of people capable of fighting for a common cause, as in the citizens of a state or country.

With muskets. That had to be hand reloaded with inaccurate lead balls.

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

The SCOTUS has long held that the 2nd stayed that membership in a militia is not a prerequisite to gun ownership.

A well regulated militia was also generally understood to be a group of people capable of fighting for a common cause, as in the citizens of a state or country.

With muskets. That had to be hand reloaded with inaccurate lead balls.

The first amendment was only referencing a printing press then too. I guess it doesn't apply to computers, the internet, phones, TV media, etc. Muskets were the military weapon of the time.

Vintage wrote:

TriJets wrote:

The SCOTUS has long held that the 2nd stayed that membership in a militia is not a prerequisite to gun ownership.

Because they chose to ignore the wording of the 2nd amendment (the Constitution). That won't last forever.

Do you understand what a militia was in the late 1700s? It was understood to be a group of people capable of fighting for a common cause, i.e. the citizens of a state.

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

A well regulated militia was also generally understood to be a group of people capable of fighting for a common cause, as in the citizens of a state or country.

With muskets. That had to be hand reloaded with inaccurate lead balls.

The first amendment was only referencing a printing press then too. I guess it doesn't apply to computers, the internet, phones, TV media, etc. Muskets were the military weapon of the time.

Really?

https://www.constituteproject.org/const ... erica_1992

#1/.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

#2

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And why don't we sell Machine Guns ?

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

With muskets. That had to be hand reloaded with inaccurate lead balls.

The first amendment was only referencing a printing press then too. I guess it doesn't apply to computers, the internet, phones, TV media, etc. Muskets were the military weapon of the time.

Really?

https://www.constituteproject.org/const ... erica_1992

#1/.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

#2

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And why don't we sell Machine Guns ?

We do sell machine guns. They are just very expensive. And when the Constitution was written, private citizens were able to own their own battleships and cannons.

TriJets wrote:

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

The first amendment was only referencing a printing press then too. I guess it doesn't apply to computers, the internet, phones, TV media, etc. Muskets were the military weapon of the time.

Really?

https://www.constituteproject.org/const ... erica_1992

#1/.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

#2

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And why don't we sell Machine Guns ?

We do sell machine guns. They are just very expensive. And when the Constitution was written, private citizens were able to own their own battleships and cannons.

So nukes are up for negotations?

There are certain arms that should not be in possession of citizens. It is just an escalation war that no one wins. We already saw that in WW 2 with the atomic bomb.

As can be seen Guns don't protect people more. They just allow more death.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country

Murders by Country
https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country

Dan Patrick wants only one way in and one way out. That works great for logistics and fire safety Dan. It also give the shooters a choke point to attack.


https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1529819857394483200

Such Geniuses they have leading Texas.

casinterest wrote:

TriJets wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Really?

https://www.constituteproject.org/const ... erica_1992

#1/.

#2

And why don't we sell Machine Guns ?

We do sell machine guns. They are just very expensive. And when the Constitution was written, private citizens were able to own their own battleships and cannons.

So nukes are up for negotations?

There are certain arms that should not be in possession of citizens. It is just an escalation war that no one wins. We already saw that in WW 2 with the atomic bomb.

As can be seen Guns don't protect people more. They just allow more death.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country

Murders by Country
https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country

Nukes are a red herring as I'm not aware of a single individual who has the ability to produce them on their own.

Individual gun ownership is protected by the 2A and that is not going to change.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Yes its incapable of stopping evil when they want to carry out evil acts. If not there would be zero murders. Government is not omnipresent in 330 million people. You need to trust the people to actually be good and do what's right. Government can't ever enforce its laws on everyone. If you do, then you are delusional.

Whatever happened to trust but verify?

All discussions seem to end in the perfect solution fallacy. Of course not even the most stringent of gun policies will stop all murders, it's all a sliding scale and quite a lot of gun owners refuse to move even an inch.

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

With muskets. That had to be hand reloaded with inaccurate lead balls.

The first amendment was only referencing a printing press then too. I guess it doesn't apply to computers, the internet, phones, TV media, etc. Muskets were the military weapon of the time.

Really?

https://www.constituteproject.org/const ... erica_1992

#1/.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

#2

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And why don't we sell Machine Guns ?

We do, a machine gun is any gun that can automatically fire bullets in rapid succession, these are what you call an "assault" riffle. You have to get special permits, but you can buy an automatic rifle.

TriJets wrote:

casinterest wrote:

TriJets wrote:

We do sell machine guns. They are just very expensive. And when the Constitution was written, private citizens were able to own their own battleships and cannons.

So nukes are up for negotations?

There are certain arms that should not be in possession of citizens. It is just an escalation war that no one wins. We already saw that in WW 2 with the atomic bomb.

As can be seen Guns don't protect people more. They just allow more death.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country

Murders by Country
https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country

Nukes are a red herring as I'm not aware of a single individual who has the ability to produce them on their own.

Individual gun ownership is protected by the 2A and that is not going to change.

The rules around it need to change. What good is there in allowing anyone to walk up and buy a killing weapon with no training, and no back ground checks? Or are kids lives not worth it anymore?

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

The first amendment was only referencing a printing press then too. I guess it doesn't apply to computers, the internet, phones, TV media, etc. Muskets were the military weapon of the time.

Really?

https://www.constituteproject.org/const ... erica_1992

#1/.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

#2

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And why don't we sell Machine Guns ?

We do, a machine gun is any gun that can automatically fire bullets in rapid succession, these are what you call an "assault" riffle. You have to get special permits, but you can buy an automatic rifle.

Made prior to 1986, and that was only because Congress actually got intelligent enough during the war on drugs to realize that arming everyone to the teeth was not good for the safety of all. Especially when these folks are not taking part in a WELL REGULATED militia.

casinterest wrote:

TriJets wrote:

casinterest wrote:

So nukes are up for negotations?

There are certain arms that should not be in possession of citizens. It is just an escalation war that no one wins. We already saw that in WW 2 with the atomic bomb.

As can be seen Guns don't protect people more. They just allow more death.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country

Murders by Country
https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country

Nukes are a red herring as I'm not aware of a single individual who has the ability to produce them on their own.

Individual gun ownership is protected by the 2A and that is not going to change.

The rules around it need to change. What good is there in allowing anyone to walk up and buy a killing weapon with no training, and no back ground checks? Or are kids lives not worth it anymore?

The 2A is not going to go anywhere, but better background checks are a measure that can be implemented that does not run afoul of the 2A.

TriJets wrote:

casinterest wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Nukes are a red herring as I'm not aware of a single individual who has the ability to produce them on their own.

Individual gun ownership is protected by the 2A and that is not going to change.

The rules around it need to change. What good is there in allowing anyone to walk up and buy a killing weapon with no training, and no back ground checks? Or are kids lives not worth it anymore?

The 2A is not going to go anywhere, but better background checks are a measure that can be implemented that does not run afoul of the 2A.

Sure, because it is so important to make kids live in fear than do anything responsible about it.

The 2A should not be a death pact, and that is what the GOP , NRA and Supreme Court want to turn it into.

casinterest wrote:

TriJets wrote:

casinterest wrote:

The rules around it need to change. What good is there in allowing anyone to walk up and buy a killing weapon with no training, and no back ground checks? Or are kids lives not worth it anymore?

The 2A is not going to go anywhere, but better background checks are a measure that can be implemented that does not run afoul of the 2A.

Sure, because it is so important to make kids live in fear than do anything responsible about it.

The 2A should not be a death pact, and that is what the GOP , NRA and Supreme Court want to turn it into.

The 2A isn't a death pact. There are over 300 million guns in the United States and around 20,000 gun homicides annually. Seems like 99.9999% of the guns aren't causing a problem.

Also, it is a moot point debating the 2A because there is literally a zero percent chance of it going anywhere. You're wasting your time and energy arguing otherwise.

TriJets wrote:

casinterest wrote:

TriJets wrote:

The 2A is not going to go anywhere, but better background checks are a measure that can be implemented that does not run afoul of the 2A.

Sure, because it is so important to make kids live in fear than do anything responsible about it.

The 2A should not be a death pact, and that is what the GOP , NRA and Supreme Court want to turn it into.

The 2A isn't a death pact. There are over 300 million guns in the United States and around 20,000 gun homicides annually. Seems like 99.9999% of the guns aren't causing a problem.

Also, it is a moot point debating the 2A because there is literally a zero percent chance of it going anywhere. You're wasting your time and energy arguing otherwise.

As posted before, we are amongst the leaders in the world in Gun Homicides , and homicides in general. Guns don't help.

TriJets wrote:

casinterest wrote:

TriJets wrote:

The 2A is not going to go anywhere, but better background checks are a measure that can be implemented that does not run afoul of the 2A.

Sure, because it is so important to make kids live in fear than do anything responsible about it.

The 2A should not be a death pact, and that is what the GOP , NRA and Supreme Court want to turn it into.

The 2A isn't a death pact. There are over 300 million guns in the United States and around 20,000 gun homicides annually. Seems like 99.9999% of the guns aren't causing a problem.

Also, it is a moot point debating the 2A because there is literally a zero percent chance of it going anywhere. You're wasting your time and energy arguing otherwise.

I think you are missing the point. You stated it but missed it completely. And it isn't the guns that is causing the problem, it is the politicians that are gutless and do nothing to work on addressing the issue of those that can access and own those guns.

I mean would you also say that school shootings aren't really a problem and nothing needs to be changed since they comprise less than 0.5% of homicides?

I say enforce the 2nd Amendment, require people to participate in militias (well regulated Militia's of course) in order to freely carry firearms.

Tugg

The pretzel turning that some in this thread, and others on the right or those who are generally opposed to a discussion around gun restrictions, are doing to explain this away is predictable yet not surprising.

As I noted in the Buffalo thread, while those from outside the US may bang their head against the wall, the cold hard reality is that a certain number of deaths, including the killing of young children in school, is an acceptable price willing to be paid for low restriction access to firearms. It may seem abhorrent and morally repugnant, but it is the sad reality. As a conservative politician in Canada recently put it - Enough Americans are prepared to witness a certain number of casualties so that they can enjoy limitless access to their dangerous and deadly toys. That’s it. It is a clear and conscious transaction. The “freedom” is more important than the freedom from fear of kids in schools.

- Don't talk about the gun, that's politics!
- Its mental health
- Its societal decay and values
- Its the trans people (yes, you read that right and, yes, there are those on the right that have tried to link this to trans people)
- Its the fault of the police for not going in quicker
- The school was poorly designed, and needs to be hardened. One door only!
- Send your kids to private schools
- Its the fault of the parents
- Gun buybacks don't work (notwithstanding the evidence from Australia that proves this to be wrong)
- We need to focus on reasonable reforms (which the NRA will then block as they line the pockets of politicians)
- Defensive gun use exceeds the killing of kids (notwithstanding stats from another poster above that proves that to be bunk)
- We need to focus on background checks, not the sale itself (90% of Americans support background checks for gun sales, and bipartisan legislation gets filibustered).

Anything missed?

Meanwhile, there is potentially another 18 year old buying his second AR-15 somewhere, as I type this. And, as I type this, parents are burying the mangled remains of their children.

This all reminds me of a scene from the movie the Normal Heart, which follows the lives of a group of gay men during the AIDS crisis. In one scene, one of the characters is crying and screaming 'why won't they do anything!?' in response to government inaction. His friend coldly reminded him that "they just don't like us."

When it comes to death and school shootings as a price to pay for the 2A .. .well, they just don't care

Guns need much harsher regulation in the US or banning altogether. 2nd amendment is an outdated fallacy grandfathered for generations to long now.

I would say it’s not like the Wild West in the USA exactly is it? People don’t generally need to carry or bear arms to survive each day, but, well… maybe that’s also part of the problem.

I’m wel aware the vast majority of hun owners are not psychopaths murdering people but 20,000 homicides a year is a big number alone, forgetting god-awful events such as these we’ve just witnessed (again). It’s 2022, this should not be happening with anything like the frequency it is anymore. Too many people with too much free and easy access to legend weapons such as guns..

Many bring up mental health as a critical and major factor for these mass gun terror events. Many will bring up the lack of access to care of mental health in the USA and indeed that is true. We also have in the USA a terrible stigma of having a psychological or mental health problem. Many with problems won't do not seek professional treatment, families won't intervene to get help our of fear of the stigma on them too. Too often persons with such problems turn to illegal drugs with abuse. Our health privacy laws make it impossible tor background checks for gun purchases or to include if have mental health problems. Well documented abuses that came out in the 1960's-1970's of psychiatric hospitals, have made it near impossible to institutionalize those with mental health problems except in our prisons and jails.

ltbewr wrote:

Many bring up mental health as a critical and major factor for these mass gun terror events. Many will bring up the lack of access to care of mental health in the USA and indeed that is true. We also have in the USA a terrible stigma of having a psychological or mental health problem. Many with problems won't do not seek professional treatment, families won't intervene to get help our of fear of the stigma on them too. Too often persons with such problems turn to illegal drugs with abuse. Our health privacy laws make it impossible tor background checks for gun purchases or to include if have mental health problems. Well documented abuses that came out in the 1960's-1970's of psychiatric hospitals, have made it near impossible to institutionalize those with mental health problems except in our prisons and jails.

The Second Amendment say nothing regarding the mental state of an individual, thus you cannot limit them from owning and using firearms.

Tugg