Lindsey Graham's bill to disarm people based on medical records; NRA approves

[rambone]

"The NRA has been very supportive on ... adding the potentially violently mentally ill to the database which most states the federal government have up to now, not done. The president says he will do that and that's good." -- David Keene, NRA President

www.youtube.com/watch?v=giApNBl4bwM

 

[d.kaufman]

Most definitely a touchy subject, but one things for sure, if politicians are involved the bill will be very vague and interpreted in many ways that wont benefit "We the people "

 

[Kirk Freeman]

How many mentally ill people shot up a school today?

A bunch. How many names do you want?

These people are already federally prohibited. This allows states to update their records. How is this a bad thing?

It won't solve anything or prevent any crimes but making the government focus on what they should have been doing to a great way to redirect .gov.

NRA is already standing vigorously against the UBC. What is the problem here?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So, is it the lack of anarchy or what?

What's the problem with making .gov update their records? These people are already prohibited persons (well, arguably a federal finding of NGBRI is new) . . . so what's the fuss?

The fear of amendments?

Lack of trust of Congress?

Both valid concerns to me.

 

[rambone]

I don't believe the Feds should have a No-Rights List, let alone be expanding it.

 

[T2D4]

next thing you guys know, 38 states will conspire to remove the 2nd amendment completely.

 

[danielson]

I have to admit, It worries me. I mean hell, they voted a man who believes that to be a good idea into the presidency... TWICE

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I don't believe the Feds should have a No-Rights List, let alone be expanding it.

Makes sense and is consistent.

If your position is that there is no federal role whatsoever as the Constitution provides no role for the federal government (should be all state level), then I understand.

Thanks, ram.

 

[rambone]

Here's what it looks like when this bright idea is put into place: Cops raiding gun owners' homes, to confiscate their guns. Its happening now in California at a state level. They have tens of thousands of gun owners on their No-Rights List.

Its sad that the NRA, the Brady Campaign, and the gun-haters in California are all in agreement about this.


California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Bear Arms

 

[nemo97]

I don't begrudge anyone for the defenses they choose to use in our Criminal Injustice system. If "insanity" works, then more power to the defendant. Stripping the rights of everyone who mounts a particular defense in court is incredibly unjust.

Blanket solutions like this are mindless and lazy. Just like zero tolerance policies and mandatory minimum sentences.

Or as mindless as a gun-free zone.

 

[nemo97]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and I don't even believe these intentions are good.

I read the these threads and it just makes me sick that my fellow freedom loving gun owners would find any way to support disarming Americans. I just don't get it. You either have rights, or you don't. You really want to empower the government more? You really want someone else determining whether you are mentally fit for gun ownership?

How many mentally ill people shot up a school today? The best solution is still allowing people to protect themselves, not taking rights away from any group. Hell, that's how we started on this slippery slope to begin with. Identify a group of people that shouldn't have a right, take it away from them, wait a few years and add keep adding more groups until everyone is included.

Lindsay Graham and GTH and so can Wayne LaPierre if the NRA backs this bull

I think the problem most have is their understanding of what Rights are and how they are applied. The fact anyone would support such legislation indicates one of a few things:
1) they do not understand the true meaning of uninalienable rights;
2) they support limiting rights as long as theirs are left intact which really means rights are not uninalienable;
3) they support state tyranny and may not yet realize it (1st they came for ___ and I said nothing, then they came for ____ and I said nothing, then they came for me and no one was there to defend me.). Sounds like the slippery slope to me.

Rights should not be compromised at all. The fact that this discussion is occuring is sickening. It is time to stop thinking of the arguement with the rules the opponents set because the rules have been perverted due to the fact they are cheaters and will attempt to win at any cost. Dare to be a purist and stand up for our Founders' view of freedoms and stop this assault!

 

[rambone]

Here's about the California confiscation. Can't wait till this goes national.

Tense moments as California agents confiscate illegal guns - CBS News