As for the medication question, there are plenty of medications out there that help with the mind whether they be depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc. I'd say patients would have to be on the same medication for a year and have their condition declared "stable" by a doctor before getting a gun (this is coming from a pharmacist's view FYI).

 

The real interesting question is what would you do if changed someone's medication entirely with said condition and they had a gun? Would the doctor require them to forfeit it? If not who would take charge? When you change medications when they were previously stable (for insurances issues or what not), it may be awhile before another good regimen is found.

 

Lots of grey area would need to be addressed here. I used to be against making our gun laws stricter but that view has softened over the years. We need to primarily take the guns out of the hands of people who were not fit to have them anyways and the whole mind conditions and medications discussion earlier partially addresses that.

Your premise fails with me because I don't think we should make it harder to take advantage of a constitutional right.

 

But it seems we already do the same thing with registering to vote and it would be the same process as selling or registering our cars wouldn't it?

As much as mental health issues seem to be a part of the problem, it is worth noting that millions of people have mental health issues and manage to never even so much as threaten someone else, let alone shoot someone else.

 

I've outlined what I'd like to see countless times in the past. In a nutshell, my hot button issue is with irresponsibility that ends with children being killed, maimed or doing the same to either other children or adults.

 

In the case of mass shootings or gun violence in general, I'm now of the belief that these can't be regulated away at all.

 

I don't believe most of those who commit acts of violence are mentally ill. I'm of the opinion that with the exception of a select few, most are just evil. You don't have to be mentally ill to be a black soul. We want to say they are mentally ill, bit really, they are as rational as the rest of us, they just have no regard for human life. It's not just gun violence...it's domestic violence, it's abuse of animals, and it's sometimes just general belligerence.

 

We can blame drugs, guns, bad parents, mental illness....but in the end, it comes down to the fact that there have always been, and will always be, seriously bad people in the world. And now, they gain instant, worldwide recognition when their blackness is manifested in horrific acts. And often, their disregard for life extends to disregard for even their own life, as their quest for fame leads them to "die for their cause".

 

Arming everyone will not solve these issues. Disarming everyone will not solve any issues. As a society, we need to change the culture of our country.

 

That's where I am today with it all. I don't have any answers. There are no simple solutions, and every man, woman and child has to be involved in the solution.

This is probably the first time I've been in complete agreement with you in a gun/gun violence thread. :thumb:

But it seems we already do the same thing with registering to vote and it would be the same process as selling or registering our cars wouldn't it?

 

Driving isn't a constitutional right . We register to vote with a local county not the federal government.

Driving isn't a constitutional right . We register to vote with a local county not the federal government.

 

The right to travel is a Constitutional right, the right to drive is not. Interestingly, the Supreme Court, in holding that the the right to drive can be regulated, stated that in the hands of an inexperienced driver, a car could become a weapon. So we can regulate cars because they could become a weapon, but we can't regulate weapons because they are weapons.

The right to travel is a Constitutional right, the right to drive is not. Interestingly, the Supreme Court, in holding that the the right to drive can be regulated, stated that in the hands of an inexperienced driver, a car could become a weapon. So we can regulate cars because they could become a weapon, but we can't regulate weapons because they are weapons.

Where are you getting the notion that weapons aren't regulated?

Driving isn't a constitutional right . We register to vote with a local county not the federal government.

 

As I've said, I don't know current regulations but I've always assumed guns are already registered. Is that not the case already anyway? What in Habib's plan would change that? Also, if we're talking making it harder to fulfill a constitutional right how is it any harder to register a gun with the federal government than it is to register to vote with the local government?

As someone who works in medicine, antidepressants are passed out like candy today. Chances are there's a relative in your family on one. It's more of what Rockmom said, we have an evil problem in this country.

The right to travel is a Constitutional right, the right to drive is not. Interestingly, the Supreme Court, in holding that the the right to drive can be regulated, stated that in the hands of an inexperienced driver, a car could become a weapon. So we can regulate cars because they could become a weapon, but we can't regulate weapons because they are weapons.

 

Guns are regulated. Very regulated. I just don't think more federal government in citizens lives is ever the answer.

 

Gotcha thanks.

 

I'll never own a gun. Have zero desire to. Don't see the point of it. That being said, I firmly support the right of others to have them. I do think some stricter regulations would probably be beneficial though.

 

I'd say a zero tolerance policy for anyone who's been convicted of a crime (as an adult).

 

I'd also be for not allowing anyone who is currently taking those kind of medications to own one, or at the very minimum have to pass a mental evaluation in order to have one.

 

:idunno: Kinda thinking out loud here.

 

Any crime? Non violent misdemeanors?

Rockmom is right... we have many evil people in this country. It is just a function of math. We have 300 million people in the US. If 99.9% are good and .1% is evil, we have 300,000 evil folks among us. We cannot stop them with any laws. We need to protect our kids - armed security officers should be at every college/HS in the US. Gun free zones may sound good to some but are a big problem in this country IMO.

Rockmom is right... we have many evil people in this country. It is just a function of math. We have 300 million people in the US. If 99.9% are good and .1% is evil' date=' we have 300,000 evil folks among us. We cannot stop them with any laws. We need to protect our kids - armed security officers should be at every college/HS in the US. Gun free zones may sound good to some but are a big problem in this country IMO.[/quote']

 

Winner.....

 

We're gonna have to take an Israel approach at some point but the Dems will wet their pants with armed security guard present in America.

Your premise fails with me because I don't think we should make it harder to take advantage of a constitutional right.

 

I think part of the problem with the "constitutional right" is the way the second 2nd Amendment was written. It's vague.

 

"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."

 

It provides for the rights of citizen's to purchase, possess, and use firearms, but how it is to be regulated is not included. When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights the weapon of choice was a single shot musket that took some time and effort to reload. I'm not saying they didn't forsee new and advanced improvements with weapons in the future but the thoughts in their minds at the time were based around their recent experiences with the British and the future safety of the people, and the right for individuals to not have their musket ownership interfered with by the government. Fast-fowarded to 2015 and the multiple mass shootings in theaters, churches, and schools---these couldn't have happened with the muskets used in the late 18th century.

I guess what I'm trying to say is the 2nd Amendment is outdated, not clear, and needs to be revised (which will never happen).

I'm not against private ownership of guns, I have a pistol, a rifle, and a shotgun myself. But I do agree with Habib that some gun regulations are needed in today's world.

I think part of the problem with the "constitutional right" is the way the second 2nd Amendment was written. It's vague.

 

"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."

 

It provides for the rights of citizen's to purchase, possess, and use firearms, but how it is to be regulated is not included. When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights the weapon of choice was a single shot musket that took some time and effort to reload. I'm not saying they didn't forsee new and advanced improvements with weapons in the future but the thoughts in their minds at the time were based around their recent experiences with the British and the future safety of the people, and the right for individuals to not have their musket ownership interfered with by the government. Fast-fowarded to 2015 and the multiple mass shootings in theaters, churches, and schools---these couldn't have happened with the muskets used in the late 18th century.

I guess what I'm trying to say is the 2nd Amendment is outdated, not clear, and needs to be revised (which will never happen).

I'm not against private ownership of guns, I have a pistol, a rifle, and a shotgun myself. But I do agree with Habib that some gun regulations are needed in today's world.

 

Did the founder fathers forsee social media and the internet? Should we restrict speech online because the 1st ammendment is outdated ?

 

Should we lose 4th ammendment rights because of technology unforseen?

Enforce the ones we have.