We got ‘til 1am on the HPA/SHORT Act🚨

[Ballvina]

Sounds like a few here are calling for the "R" word that describes sometimes what a tire does!

 

[Ballvina]

 

[jonsmith6391]

So we are back to the government choosing which animals are more equal than others?
I'm not denying the reality of the PATHETIC and DANGEROUS realities of the mental health situation in this country.

Then why allow people such as this to possess firearms? In the name of "freedom"? It is reckless to do this. As it has been said repeatedly, "freedom is not free." We have far more freedom than most other countries in the world and while I do have my issues with our gun laws, I also understand why things have to be the way they are (to an extent). This is not my compromising; it is understanding the need for safeguards to make acquiring a firearm more difficult for people who shouldn't own one.

All human life has value, yes, but to believe mentally unstable people who the government either does not put away or who manage to trick a jury of their peers into believing is benevolent should have access to firearms is insane. I suppose one may as well give every pyromaniac a flamethrower and see what happens.

 

[GeauxLSU]

Then why allow people such as this to possess firearms? In the name of "freedom"? It is reckless to do this. As it has been said repeatedly, "freedom is not free." We have far more freedom than most other countries in the world and while I do have my issues with our gun laws, I also understand why things have to be the way they are (to an extent). This is not my compromising; it is understanding the need for safeguards to make acquiring a firearm more difficult for people who shouldn't own one.

All human life has value, yes, but to believe mentally unstable people who the government either does not put away or who manage to trick a jury of their peers into believing is benevolent should have access to firearms is insane. I suppose one may as well give every pyromaniac a flamethrower and see what happens.

You are comfortable with denying free men their rights. I am not. You use "safety" as justification. The exact same justification used to strip and restrict literally countless rights. We are different. You are in the majority. Take comfort in that. I guess.

 

[atscott]

TL; DR There's no simple answer to your question, but I think, as a community, we can agree that mentally unstable individuals who pose a danger to themselves or others should not be able to possess a firearm. This would include a history of crimes such as domestic violence, violent felonies, terrorism, etc. and a history of mental instability.

Main post below:
I'm in total agreement with @BIKER13's posts; not everyone should have a gun. However, this begs the question you ask: who gets to choose? This is the crux of the issue and, for context, I used to be completely anti-background check.

A little while back, out of sincere curiosity, I looked up the reason behind why certain legislation was passed and enacted surrounding firearms. Apologies for what likely sounds likes a boring history lesson and is likely information everyone here knows, but I'll get to my point momentarily.

Pertaining specifically to the background checks and why we can't buy guns through the mail anymore, it is because of both the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. The former was enacted by President Clinton, the latter by President Johnson. President Clinton's legislation created the first "real" law about background checks and created NICS. President Johnson's legislation stopped allowing gun purchases through the mail due to a rise in assassinations; I believe Lee Harvey Oswald purchased his gun through the mail that (allegedly) killed JFK (don't get me going down that rabbit hole), which is what sparked the legislation to be brought to light and passed. This same legislation also brought forth serial numbers on guns and a plethora of other regulations that I am used to, but many here may not be.

Point being to all of this, there is the law and the spirit of the law in which something was enacted. I was born in the early 90s, so I was not familiar with LBJ, but I like to believe the spirit behind the passing of such legislation was done benevolently and was not a hostile infringement on the 2nd Amendment; in fact, I believe the GCA of 1968 was passed in memory of JFK. Call me naive, but I understand why such legislation was enacted and, while as a law-abiding citizen I may find myself annoyed and disagreeing that I should have to go through hoops for firearms, I can also respect the intentionality behind it and the effort to (seemingly) make acquiring firearms by bad guys more difficult. As for gun laws that keep attempting to be passed or that have passed in the past 25-30 years, especially in states such as New York and California, I believe there is major hostility and infringement on 2nd Amendment rights, especially with preventing ownership of so-called "high-capacity" magazines and certain firearms.

In a perfect world, the 2nd Amendment would reign totally free and bad guys would never be able to buy a gun and the rest of us would go to the range, firing machine guns and having a heck of a time, but because we live in a broken world, we unfortunately need legislation in place that requires background checks on individuals because we don't know who is a psychopath and who is an average Joe. Does this mean it's perfect? Of course not; the guy that police say bought a gun and ammo in Canton from a gun store and went and killed a bunch of massage workers passed his background check! In a sad, ironic twist, not a single news post I saw on that coverage mentioned stricter gun control laws or background checks because the gun store followed the law and he passed it.

Does this mean we need to have even more thorough background checks much like what the NFA requires? No, but I do think it reveals the fact that there will always be issues and that more legislation won't fix it, but thoughtful rewriting and even repealing of current legislation could as well as responsible, up-to-date reporting by government agencies on unstable, dangerous individuals, which, once again, goes back to the original question asked: Who gets to be the judge of that and the premise behind it? Red flag laws have shown that anyone could be labeled to be a dangerous person because of he-said, she-said, so by what rod do we measure? I think it's by agreeing on those who should not own a firearm, ever, because they lost their right to through either mental instability or being a criminal, either of whom is a danger to themselves or others or has committed a crime that was violent in nature.

Jonsmith6391 While I applaud your research into history I would say you should go farther back. The founders intended the 2nd amendment (as well as all the bill of rights) as a limit on the Federal government not citizens. It was intended for every day citizens to be able to possess the same arms that any military could possess. This is the underlying issue at hand.

The constitution as a whole is a framework for our government and is a social contract with the citizens and states. When someone violates that contract ie. violates the law (which at its core should be violating someone else's rights) they are subject to the curbing (temporarily) of some of those rights for the better good. Thus we have suspensions of the 2nd, 4th, and other rights while someone is under sentence.

What has occurred over more than 200 years is the slow erosion of those rights by the federal government, which is always done "with the best intentions" but in truth is just transferring power to those politicians and bureaucrats seeking to justify their jobs.

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1940125995828498566

 

[jonsmith6391]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1940125995828498566

I'm confused. I thought the BBB already had this included? What's the difference here?

Appreciate your updates!

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

I'm confused. I thought the BBB already had this included? What's the difference here?

Appreciate your updates!

The Senate parliamentarian stripped it (the NFA killing lang) out of the Senate version of the bill. Clyde in the House is adding it (the NFA killing lang) back to say: take that bitch.

 

[Fatal_Bert]

Then why allow people such as this to possess firearms? In the name of "freedom"? It is reckless to do this.

Benjamin Franklin had something to say about your line of thinking.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

 

[jonsmith6391]

The Senate parliamentarian stripped it out of the Senate version of the bill.

But I thought this was added back in the Senate/amended to state $0 tax stamp?