You do understand it takes about a decade to be found legally "Crazy"? It's not like you can objectively run a scan and say, yup, there's the crazy right there next to the parietal lobe just as we feared. Secondly, there's good evidence that where people are allowed to arm themselves violent crime is actually lower. Which makes sense when one just stops and thinks of the mindset of a criminal when confronted with the potential of being shot, or having absolutely no worry at all that their victim is carrying a gun. It's why women and little old ladies are targeted. Criminals are cowards who look for victims that pose the least danger to themselves. Lastly, England was ranked as the most violent country in Europe. Only Australia has a higher crime rate (almost everyone I know who lives in Sydney have either been mugged or close to it with men using knives). I believe violent crime is almost double when compafed with the USA terms of assault.
This is nonsense Michael. Everyday police respond to calls and find people legally "crazy" (a threat to themselves and or others) and place them on psychiatric restraints/holds. Everyday people are diagnosed with severe mental illnesses by mental health professionals and prescribed medicine. It doesn't take 10 years to diagnose someone as a threat to themselves or others and begin medical treatment.
Agreed. Cops can confiscate guns before a person is "found crazy" if he presents a clear threat to himself or others. This is already the standard used for a psych hold where a person can be held against their will for an evaluation. We already have the mechanism in place, we just need it to be universally enforced. And if the person is found to be sane they get their guns back.
19 Executive Orders & Articles of Impeachment The White house is considering 19 executive orders on gun control. Meanwhile, Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman has warned that he will file articles of impeachment if Obama moves to institute gun control via executive order: I'm pretty sure a majority of the house would love to vote to impeach Obama just on general principle, but there's not much point to it unless Obama does something really outrageous since the actual trial would take place in the Senate. So while this is mostly just blustering by Rep Stockman, Obama should tread carefully as (IMO) an over reach on gun control could really backfire on him. I could even see it generating the kind of backlash we saw on Obamacare.
I doubt it, since it's what the people want. Trying to impeach him over something most Americans support could lose the Republicans their house majority. =========================== Poll: Most Americans support new gun-control measures after Newtown massacre By David Nakamura and Jon Cohen, Published: January 14 Most Americans support tough new measures to counter gun violence, including banning assault weapons and posting armed guards at every school, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. More than half of Americans — 52 percent in the poll — say the shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., has made them more supportive of gun control; just 5 percent say they are now less apt to back tighter restrictions. Most also are at least somewhat worried about a mass shooting in their own community, with concern jumping to 65 percent among those with school-age children at home. ============================= You mean - end up with a new law despite every obstructionist tactic the right wing could throw at him?
I say let them go for it, let them impeach President Obama. After all, it is what Republicans do when their man isn't the POTUS. Impeachment of a popular president by an unpopular party in an unpopular institution while simultaneously putting the nation into default will further damage an already severely damaged Republican/Tea Party. Let them play their fiddles while the nation burns. It gets even sweeter when you consider the gun control executive orders President Obama is likely to issue have been issued by previous Republican presidents. I can see it now; Republicans impeach President Obama for issuing executive orders that previous Republican presidents have issued without a single Republican objection. I don’t know if it gets much better than that for Democrats, but it would clearly demonstrate the absurdity that has become the Republican/Tea Party.
Impeachment would almost certainly be a Republican over reach. On the other hand, if Obama passes something seen as being too extreme, especially if he does it in a questionable way, it could result in his party losing big in 2014. Midterm elections generally have a low turn out. Who do you think is more likely to vote in 2014? The slight majority that says it favors an automatic weapons ban but really doesn't care much about the issue, or this guy?: [video=youtube;8EvQR6mODig]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EvQR6mODig[/video]
That guy is a moron. Obama can't ban any kind of gun by executive order. What he can do is things like enforcing existing laws, prosecuting people who lie on background check forms.
It is indeed the National Guard. Private ownership of guns does not constitute a well regulated militia.
Obama could sign a bill into law that said "we honor the men and women of the Iowa emergency services department" and republicans would think it too extreme. However, given that Americans are demanding action, Obama taking action will tend to help, not hurt, him. People in jail can't vote, so I'd go with the slight majority. (Threatening mass murder is actually a crime.)
I don't know if we even need that. Just a more standardized way of handling psychiatric patients. Any time a patient is put on a psych hold, or a psychiatrist makes a preliminary determination that they might be violent, the cops go to his house and confiscate his guns, and make it clear to him that he can't own any until there is a final determination of his sanity.
Yes lets just have that at least: nation gun registartion for ALL guns, background checks for ALL guns and registation of who owns what guns. This way we can reduce the number of guns that end up in the hands of criminals and lunitics, and track gun "lose" to determine where it is that criminals are getting all these illegal guns.
He'd have to get a background check, which would fail, and thus could not get guns. He might be able to get them illegally. If he did, and got caught, then the seller would go to jail (no background check) and he would go to jail or be committed (violated the conditions of being released.)
How is the background check going to identify him as a potentially violent psychiatric patient without a national database?
Good question. I was assuming that we would not have a national database of gun owners, just a database of people who have lost the right to own weapons through insanity or crime. But to your point that's still a nationally accessible database.
You are wrong. See the supreme court discision. Furthermore, just use some common sense. The Bill of Rights is a list of individual rights. Why would we need a constitutional amendment to allow the government to arm itself? That's idiotic. The founding fathers were strongly opposed to standing armies. In fact, the "militia" (defined as the body of all free men) was meant as a protection against abuse by a standing army. “None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army” Thomas Jefferson “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” Noah Webster
I think you answered your own question. Before standing armies, all we had were citizen militias, which were formed to address events like invasion or domestic uprisings and could be federalized.
The National Guard is a government commanded, government paid, government armed (including tanks and airplanes), formally and permanently established military force. One enlists in it, for a set term at set wages with set obligations not respective of immediate demand. It is subject to military law, including courtsmartial. It is in no way a militia. If you don't know what a militia is, the 2nd Amendment might well be temporarily confusing. Recourse to a good dictionary (one with usage info, to screen for the common errors) will clarify matters. Privately supplied weaponry and other gear is one of the important, even defining or necessary, characteristics of a militia. In order to raise a militia, like a posse, you have to have an armed citizenry to draw from. That's the whole point of the 2nd Amendment. The Continental Army was not a citizen militia. The Army of the Potomac was not a citizen militia. The Confederate Army under Lee was not a citizen militia. The major differences between an army and a militia are not in whether it is "standing". Most of the regular US Army in the 150 years prior to WWII was not "standing". The fantasy world of the wingnut right is producing some really bizarre symptoms - the most obvious parallel might be with the hallucinations suffered by people in isolation tanks. General public question: what "general principle" do we guess would be invoked by such a House vote, in lieu of the high crimes and misdemeanor charges one expected to see laid in the pre-Gingrich past?
