In the wake of the horror that took place in Sandy Hook, here is a common sense compromise on Gun Control that we can all agree on and support
1. All citizens who wish to purchase a firearm have to have a background check.
2. All citizens who have a firearm, or wish to purchase a firearm, must register with the government.
3. Juveniles under 18 years can not buy a firearm or ammuntion.
4. Guns shall be classified for "Sporting Purposes"
5. Certain kinds of firearms may not be owned by private citizens.
6. Certain types of ammuntion may not be bought or owned by private citizens.
As a parent, I feel that these are a reasonable compromise that we could all live with (each side gives a little). I would like to get a conversation going. If you disagree, please give your reasons. Please keep the personal attacks to a minimum. Thank you.
For one thing, those who would infringe on the right to keep and bear arms (hereafter "anti-gun") have found a new meme: If you think you need to fear the government you must be paranoid, paranoia is a mental disease, therefore no guns for you. But outside of rhetoric, what were these signs that Lanza et al exhibited? Lanza had Asperger's, but so do most of my co-workers. (I'm an engineer.) It's easy enough to connect the dots after the fact, but to be useful we have to project the dots, and they simply don't lead to bad things most of the time. There would be a lot of false positives. I'm all for mental health. The answer might not be more counselors and more counseling -- they've done plenty of harm. I worry about mental health being touted as a preventive for murder. The reaction is likely to take away a lot of liberties (including but not limited to RKBA) from a lot of harmless people. (I know someone who has strong opinions, a rigid sense of right and wrong, and difficulties reading non-verbal communication. Add to that he's a NYer living in NH, and that he dresses in the custom of an Orthodox Jew, and a lot of people get nervous around him. He would never initiate force, but he's been asked to leave various places like hospitals. When he asks "Have a broken a rule? Have I harmed you or given indication I will?" he gets "You make us uncomfortable.")
A reasonable response and some interesting concepts. When I say I believe in the Second Amendment as a built-in answer to government tyranny, should it happen, I reckon people would view that as me being paranoid, hence, I have a mental illness and should not have private and legal guns. I hadn't considered this before. I wonder when it will become the flavor-of-the-month talking point for the anti-gun crowd? 'Attack the person, not the idea' seems to be their tactic. When I mentioned 'mental health loopholes' I was referring directly to the failure of the mental health community to monitor and regulate mental illnesses that are prone to violence. I cannot name the organization due to legal ramifications, but I have experience working with an 'at-risk population', teens and early 20's, that had Asperger's as a concrete diagnosis. I found them to be very focused and almost obsessive when I would give them assigned tasks, as if they had laser-like determination. They would retreat into these tasks and basically ignore everything else that was going on around them. And when it came time to redirect them to a new task, the effort it took to get them to release their mental focus on the task at hand, to move onto the new one, sometimes resulted in violent outbursts and high emotion. continued...
I picture Adam Lanza in a lonely room, in font of a TV screen or computer screen, playing violent video games depicting graphic deaths at his imaginary hands and I wonder if his Asperger's didn't cause hi to fixate in an unhealthy way upon the violent imagery his brain was ingesting. Just a theory I have. I cannot, obviously, prove this since he is, of course, dead. However, I have come to understand that his condition, his Asperger's, was not unrecorded via paperwork. There is a paper trail to follow. His mother is reported to also have been trying to decide what to do with her son since his condition was a concern to her. (this is unverified, though.) Looking at the mental health records of James Holmes, Jared Loughner, Adam Lanza, there was a clear indication with each of them that something was brewing in their heads. Perhaps the MH doctors did not want to call attention to this about them for some reason of being too 'chicken little-ish' or of 'crying wolf' too soon. Either way, there are now dead people at the hands of these men. So, David, I reckon I am saying that if there exists any kind of "doctor/patient" privilege, it needs to be scrutinized and analyzed. The signs were there that these men were off a bit. This is the mental helath loophole I ws referring to. Thanks for reading!
(The Patch network can make it confusing where "here" is.) As I'm sure you know, Asperger's is not associated with violent tendencies. (And until the diagnosis goes away and it ceases to exist, those at the higher functioning of the spectrum have little reason to be diagnosed or to get help, and are indistinguishable from nerds.) There have been some high profile cases (not just Lanza, but John Odgren in Sudbury, MA who fatally stabbed a fellow student in 2007) but ability to intuit non-verbal communication is largely orthogonal (uncorrelated) to violence. I agree with the armchair analysis that says besides Asperger's, Lanza had a comorbidity of a psychotic breakdown. That was the problem, and that may not have been so well known. Be careful with that mental health "loophole". The consequence that any mention of violent ideations to a counselor costs you liberties (because the counselor is a mandated reporter, and immune from breaching privilege under that rubric) would be that people would not talk out their issues with counselors. (Imagine a grieving spouse who cannot say to a counselor "I feel so low I wish I would die too," Plenty of mourners feel that way, most get through it.)
I saw that, too. Heather Borden Herve wrote it. Lots of emotional rhetoric and lack of substantial argument. Tedious. This is the tip of this newest iceberg. If a local "journalist" like Heather Herve is running with it, this means it has broken through on the bigger, more credible liberal sites, and news outlets. As to the mental health loophole issue between us, do we have the luxury any longer to not press into this issue and start to demand that doctors come clean about the patients they are treating and what for? Or how about this: Let us allow citizens to purchase legal firearms, according to the current laws and restrictions, and then if anyone commits a crime with said guns, they get automatic life in prison, no parole. Is that acceptable?
Given the "3 felonies per day" concept, if I'm logged on (eg to this site) with an alias or anonymized information that might a violation of Terms of Service, which is a federal crime. If I do it in the same room as a gun, that add-on applies. Or any of a number of other minor criminal offenses, you get the idea. There already exists a set of punishments, including specific enhancements liked "aggravated assault" or "armed robbery", why skew it so far because someone was exercising a fundamental right at the same time? I suppose what you're going for is if I own a gun "Against Medical Advice", because my counselor has said "You seem to be prone to violence. I can't have you arrested or committed for what you're going to do, but I advise you to check in to a mental hospital, or at least divest yourself of guns, sharp objects and pointy objects." Still not going to work for the same reasons. Mental health providers, and lawyers, already have an obligation to disclose concrete plans for future crimes, but you're asking to shift the balance away from very rare instances and a presumption to keep confidentiality. Neither of us have seen Adam's mental health records. I doubt there's anything in them that shows he was more prone to violence, a priori, than a big segment of the population. (This is leading to disarming those of the craziest 50% of the population who see a counselor.)
1. All citizens who wish to purchase a firearm had to REGISTER with Nazi Officials 2. All citizens who wish to purchase a firearm had to have a BACKROUND CHECK by Nazi Officials 3. This law gives Nazi Officials unrestricted power to decide WHAT KIND of firearm could, or could not be owned by private citizens
4. This law gives the Nazi officials unrestricted power to decide what type of ammunition was legal 5. Juveniles under 18 could not buy firearms or ammunition
I am working with like-minded parents like you and would like to have you join our efforts. You can reach out to me here, under Greater Danbury Brady Campaign Chapter. Click on CONTACT A CONNECTICUT CHAPTER and send us an email. http://www.bradycampaign.org/chapters/CT
Seeing as how to own a legal and private firearm in these United States demands we undergo a background criminal check and to also register our handguns with the governing authorities, we are already on a national registry.
6. Classified guns for "sporting purposes" 7. Nazi Party Members are exempted from the Gun Control Law This Gun Control Law was approved by Adolf Hitler
You said: "However, you just won't have these high capacity magazines. It's true, guns don't kill..It's the bullets that do and no one needs a magazine that can hold more than 30 rounds. I've heard and read the arguments and no one, other than those paranoid individuals who foresee a gov't enacted military incursion into our homes, have provide one single legitimate reason why they need these high capacity magazines to protect themselves." By that rationale, no one needs a car that goes over 150 mph or even 120, since you don't need to go that fast to travel as safely as you should on public roads. Needs vs. wants comes into play. You are telling me I cannot have what I want, based on an intellectually and logically flimsy talking point that hinges on vilifying guns and the Second Amendment and those who support both.
And what is this loophole? A commercial dealer, whether in his usual place of business or at a show, is obliged to check the buyer. An individual who is not a dealer (last I checked that meant not selling more than 4 guns per year for federal purposes, but it's 10 for CT purposes) is not obliged to check the buyer, again regardless of whether the sale takes place at a gun show or not. In either case, a buyer is obliged not to be a prohibited person, and in CT and many other states he is forbidden to buy a handgun even if he is not prohibited, unless he has obtained a prior license from his state. That license includes a background check. (In DC, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and NYC a buyer of a long gun must have a license.) I'm new to your state, but I don't see an exception in your Section 29-37a for any kind of show, and it says right out "(a) No person, firm or corporation may ..." concerning the sale of rifles and shotguns (or as the law puts it firearms that are not pistols or revolvers.) There is a full 14 day wait regardless of how long it takes the state agency to do a background check (with electronic records it can be instant) and they can stop the sale.
Let's review the Nazi Weapons Act ....which number is that on the list ? Keep the 7 point list handy and whenever the gun grabbers speak...you can match up what they say.....and Adolf Hitler's list.
I am a local cabbage farmer, raising 12 children here in Monroe CT. In my spare time, I counsel unwed mothers... just helping them get their start. That's actually an old profile photo. I am working on some Glamor Shots that really capture my effervescent personality and naturally appealing bone structure.
Let's pull out our handy Nazi Gun Control list and see how many points they can get. # (3). The law gives (Democrat) Officials unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms (in this case semiautomatic rifles and clips) could, or could not, be owned by the public. # (4). The law gives (Democrat) officials unrestricted power to decide what type of ammo is legal. # (2). They even want background checks for ammo purchases. They even want background checks for everyone who lives in the house where the gun is. # (6). Some exceptions for "sporting/hunting" purposes. California already has Nazi Gun Rules # 1 and # 5....... GO California ! ..... Six out of 7 of Adolf Hitler's Gun Control Rules ! The only point missing is # 7...."Nazi Party Members are exempted from the Gun Control Rules". Come on California........you can do it !....Let's get all 7 of Adolf's Gun Rules !
Somebody has become unhinged. Amy?
You didn't mention if you were married, so of course I got my hopes up. I was hoping that we could meet up and drink some sissy wine and deconstruct the works of your favorite poet, Tasos Livadites. Cant wait to see your new glamour shots....please send them as soon as you get them.....BTW....I LOVE cabbage !
Go get 'im, girl. This "Carl" is not actually here to offer anything substantive. You properly schooled "him". Nicely done.