Which gun control measure would you prefer?

[swing_voter]

1. Provide free mental health care to crazy people. If you're likely to buy a gun and kill a dozen people, we'll provide your mental health treatment free of charge. It's the price we're willing to pay to have easily accessible guns.

2. You must get a permit issued to you by a trained psychiatrist certifying that you aren't a threat to yourself or others. You'd have to pay for this yourself.



Gun regulation is perfectly legal. The National Firearms Act of 1932 regulated the hell out of guns and that law has stood for almost a 100 years. It's why it's illegal, restricted is a better term, to own a sawed off shotgun, for example. Or an M16A1.

 

[Captain Adverse]

1. Provide free mental health care to crazy people. If you're likely to buy a gun and kill a dozen people, we'll provide your mental health treatment free of charge. It's the price we're willing to pay to have easily accessible guns.

2. You must get a permit issued to you by a trained psychiatrist certifying that you aren't a threat to yourself or others. You'd have to pay for this yourself.



Gun regulation is perfectly legal. The National Firearms Act of 1932 regulated the hell out of guns and that law has stood for almost a 100 years. It's why it's illegal, restricted is a better term, to own a sawed off shotgun, for example. Or an M16A1.

Actually United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) ruled that because the weapon (a sawed-off shotgun) had no relation to a "militia purpose" that it was not protected by the Second Amendment. Thus the possession could be regulated. It also allowed the Feds to regulate such weapons per the Constitutional authority under the intestate commerce clause, which the issue was originally raised under.

HOWEVER, you must not have been keeping up with current events. SCOTUS has since ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Thus reversing Miller's definition of "no militia purpose." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Then of course in McDonald v. City of Chicago 561 U.S. 742 (2010), SCOTUS incorporated the 2A as applying to the States as well.

So "gun regulation" is still an issue of dispute.

Now, to answer the OP question:

Neither. I chose "Other."

Providing "free mental health care" should rightly be a State issue, and not the business of the Federal government. If you think your State taxes should be increased to cover mental health, then lobby the State.

As for getting "authorization from a psychiatrist?" No, as the Second Amendment provides no such power to "infringe." In fact, it would be giving power to a "free agent" to grant or deny a right based on their assumed "special knowledge." I think we have sufficient recourse via the Judicial system, where a person is given a fair hearing and can provide his own "mental health" witnesses in support.

 

[lemmiwinx]

You need to be able to shoot an intruder in your house dead in 50 seconds or less. That sound of breaking glass on your patio window should have given you a wake up call.

 

[Mycroft]

1. Provide free mental health care to crazy people. If you're likely to buy a gun and kill a dozen people, we'll provide your mental health treatment free of charge. It's the price we're willing to pay to have easily accessible guns.

2. You must get a permit issued to you by a trained psychiatrist certifying that you aren't a threat to yourself or others. You'd have to pay for this yourself.



Gun regulation is perfectly legal. The National Firearms Act of 1932 regulated the hell out of guns and that law has stood for almost a 100 years. It's why it's illegal, restricted is a better term, to own a sawed off shotgun, for example. Or an M16A1.

Neither.

Number one is not gun control.

Number two violates the 2nd Amendment.

Now...if the government wants to provide everybody...whether they buy a gun or not...with free mental health care, that can be discussed, but it has nothing to do with gun control.

 

[craig]

1. Provide free mental health care to crazy people. If you're likely to buy a gun and kill a dozen people, we'll provide your mental health treatment free of charge. It's the price we're willing to pay to have easily accessible guns.

2. You must get a permit issued to you by a trained psychiatrist certifying that you aren't a threat to yourself or others. You'd have to pay for this yourself.



Gun regulation is perfectly legal. The National Firearms Act of 1932 regulated the hell out of guns and that law has stood for almost a 100 years. It's why it's illegal, restricted is a better term, to own a sawed off shotgun, for example. Or an M16A1.

Register gun owners.

 

[Rich2018]

1. Provide free mental health care to crazy people. If you're likely to buy a gun and kill a dozen people, we'll provide your mental health treatment free of charge. It's the price we're willing to pay to have easily accessible guns.

2. You must get a permit issued to you by a trained psychiatrist certifying that you aren't a threat to yourself or others. You'd have to pay for this yourself.



Gun regulation is perfectly legal. The National Firearms Act of 1932 regulated the hell out of guns and that law has stood for almost a 100 years. It's why it's illegal, restricted is a better term, to own a sawed off shotgun, for example. Or an M16A1.

Neither, both are stupid.

 

[craig]

Neither, both are stupid.

What is stupid is you want to take away guns from half of the country that are adamant that that will not happen.

 

[Rich2018]

What is stupid is you want to take away guns from half of the country that are adamant that that will not happen.

And why is that "stupid" ?

 

[TurtleDude]

Register gun owners.

why? how is that going to deter criminals?

 

[Chillfolks]

Register gun owners.

No problem tie it into registering to vote. Once you’ve registered to vote you also are registered to own a gun. If you choose to exercise those rights you can if not that is also your choice.

 

[Mycroft]

No problem tie it into registering to vote. Once you’ve registered to vote you also are registered to own a gun. If you choose to exercise those rights you can if not that is also your choice.

"shall not be infringed"

 

[Chillfolks]

1. Provide free mental health care to crazy people. If you're likely to buy a gun and kill a dozen people, we'll provide your mental health treatment free of charge. It's the price we're willing to pay to have easily accessible guns.

2. You must get a permit issued to you by a trained psychiatrist certifying that you aren't a threat to yourself or others. You'd have to pay for this yourself.



Gun regulation is perfectly legal. The National Firearms Act of 1932 regulated the hell out of guns and that law has stood for almost a 100 years. It's why it's illegal, restricted is a better term, to own a sawed off shotgun, for example. Or an M16A1.

Providi free mental health care is only part of the solution. The trick is coming up with a plan that allows people to get the mental health they need without having to permanently surend their rights. Of course each case is different so granted some people will need more help and limits than others. How do you get someone who for whatever reason is temporarily pissed at the world the help and skills they need without a permit ban? As we have seen with som of the recent shootings in loc with red flag laws, having a prig does not always equate to it being used.

 

[Chillfolks]

"shall not be infringed"

I would not consider it infringement any more than requiring someone to register to vote is suppression. How do you see it as an infringement?

 

[CLAX1911]

1. Provide free mental health care to crazy people. If you're likely to buy a gun and kill a dozen people, we'll provide your mental health treatment free of charge. It's the price we're willing to pay to have easily accessible guns.

2. You must get a permit issued to you by a trained psychiatrist certifying that you aren't a threat to yourself or others. You'd have to pay for this yourself.



Gun regulation is perfectly legal. The National Firearms Act of 1932 regulated the hell out of guns and that law has stood for almost a 100 years. It's why it's illegal, restricted is a better term, to own a sawed off shotgun, for example. Or an M16A1.

You can get a snub nose revolver that is chambered for shotgun cartages, and carry it. So like most "gun regulation" it's toothless. Probably because it's written by people that lack knowledge on the subject

1) has nothing to do with guns
2) is unconstitutional. I'm permitted by the second amendment. Any further permission isn't recognized.

Just like how I don't need a permit for a trial by jury or to be secure in my person.

 

[Bum]

Which gun control measure would you prefer?​

Sight picture, breath control, and trigger squeeze.

 

[Mycroft]

I would not consider it infringement any more than requiring someone to register to vote is suppression. How do you see it as an infringement?

shrug...

It's not up to you.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I would not consider it infringement any more than requiring someone to register to vote is suppression. How do you see it as an infringement?

Simple.

Voting is a "civil right," i.e. it is directly tied to your civic duty as a citizen. But you must be of a certain age, and registered in your legal jurisdiction of residence where you are entitled by law to vote. Done to preserve one person, one vote as opposed to voting multiple times inside and outside one's place of residence.

On the other hand the right to keep and bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right of access to means of self-defense. It is not supposed to be bound to any specific jurisdiction. It is supposed to be applicable anywhere you travel through, travel to, visit, or reside in the United States.

 

[Waddy]

1. Provide free mental health care to crazy people. If you're likely to buy a gun and kill a dozen people, we'll provide your mental health treatment free of charge. It's the price we're willing to pay to have easily accessible guns.

2. You must get a permit issued to you by a trained psychiatrist certifying that you aren't a threat to yourself or others. You'd have to pay for this yourself.



Gun regulation is perfectly legal. The National Firearms Act of 1932 regulated the hell out of guns and that law has stood for almost a 100 years. It's why it's illegal, restricted is a better term, to own a sawed off shotgun, for example. Or an M16A1.

Those sound like great ideas!!! Guess who opposes that? The mental health community. They don't want mentally ill people singled out in any official way because they are afraid those people won't seek out treatment. They're probably right.
And you're right again. Gun regulation is legal. ALL rights have limitations. Problem is, you can't legislate away a right. The standard for setting a regulation on a right, and right, is a very high standard. And, yes you can own a sawed off shotgun; so long as you don't saw it off under 18 inches. And yes, you can own an M16A1 if it was made before 1986.

 

[CLAX1911]

No problem tie it into registering to vote. Once you’ve registered to vote you also are registered to own a gun. If you choose to exercise those rights you can if not that is also your choice.

You're already registered to own a gun by virtue of being born under the Constitution.
I don't believe it says anywhere in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution that you have the right to vote so same can't be said for voting

 

[jamesrage]

You're already registered to own a gun by virtue of being born under the Constitution.
I don't believe it says anywhere in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution that you have the right to vote so same can't be said for voting

True the bill of rights in the Constitution does not mention voting as a right. However the 15th, 19th,24th and 26th amendments to the constitution do mention voting as a right.

15th amendment
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.


19th amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

24th amendment
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.


26th amendment
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

 

[CLAX1911]

True the bill of rights in the Constitution does not mention voting as a right. However the 15th, 19th,24th and 26th amendments to the constitution do mention voting as a right.

15th amendment
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.


19th amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

24th amendment
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.


26th amendment
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Fair enough but it doesn't say you don't need to register to vote.

 

[Rich2018]

Fair enough but it doesn't say you don't need to register to vote.

Exactly, so you do have to register. You have to register, for what is a right.

 

[Waddy]

Exactly, so you do have to register. You have to register, for what is a right.

Gun registration isn't un-Constitutional. Many urban cities require gun registration. Problem is, it hasn't reduced crime one bit. It becomes a formality and many people simply ignore the requirement. Criminals ignore it altogether. BTW; every time you buy a gun through the Instant Check you have registered that gun.

 

[Rich2018]

Gun registration isn't un-Constitutional. Many urban cities require gun registration. Problem is, it hasn't reduced crime one bit. It becomes a formality and many people simply ignore the requirement. Criminals ignore it altogether. BTW; every time you buy a gun through the Instant Check you have registered that gun.

How do you know if gun registration hasn't reduced crime?
What studies are you aware of ?

The object of gun control is not to reduce crime (though it will reduce it a bit), it is to reduce shootings in general and mass shootings in particular

Registration can also be hugely beneficial in law enforcement solving crimes that involved the use of a firearm, so in that respect, it will reduce crime a little too by acting both as a deterrent and by helping to convict criminals so they cannot commit further crimes.

 

[TurtleDude]

How do you know if gun registration hasn't reduced crime?
What studies are you aware of ?

The object of gun control is not to reduce crime (though it will reduce it a bit), it is to reduce shootings in general and mass shootings in particular

Registration can also be hugely beneficial in law enforcement solving crimes that involved the use of a firearm, so in that respect, it will reduce crime a little too by acting both as a deterrent and by helping to convict criminals so they cannot commit further crimes.

pure speculation. Hawaii has had gun registration for decades. No evidence it has helped them solve a single crime