U S Gun Lobby Issues Point-Blank 'no' To Gun Control

[F430murci]

A lot the anti gun people seem to think that banning guns would be some kind of panacea to gun crime.

Are you really so naive?

Guns will always be available on the black market no matter how many restrictions you place on them.

Nope, only a start and part if a multi faceted approach that will take several years to implement and effectuate. The alternative is to end up like Mexico where people walk around carrying assault rifles and there are so many murders that only 10 percent are actually investigated and solved.

[Jingthing]

A lot the anti gun people seem to think that banning guns would be some kind of panacea to gun crime.

Are you really so naive?

Guns will always be available on the black market no matter how many restrictions you place on them.

So let's not do anything because there is no perfect solution that prevents all gun deaths. I am happy for more enlightened countries like Australia (and most of the world) who are not so fatalistic. Edited December 24, 2012 by Jingthing

[whybother]

A lot the anti gun people seem to think that banning guns would be some kind of panacea to gun crime.

Are you really so naive?

Guns will always be available on the black market no matter how many restrictions you place on them.

That might be right if the aim was to ban ALL guns. It's much better for the pro-gun lobby to say it that way.

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post has been removed.

[teatree]

A lot the anti gun people seem to think that banning guns would be some kind of panacea to gun crime.

Are you really so naive?

Guns will always be available on the black market no matter how many restrictions you place on them.

So let's not do anything because there is no perfect solution that prevents all gun deaths. I am happy for more enlightened countries like Australia (and most of the world) who are not so fatalistic.

Then why not broaden your vision and look at other causes such as the mass drugging with prescription drugs of the US youth.

Nearly all the shooters in this type of incident are on very powerful psychotropic drugs yet not a word from anyone about the obvious links.

Edited December 24, 2012 by teatree

[metisdead]

Another inflammatory post has been removed, you are free to express you opinion, however leave the flames out of it when doing so.

[Baloo22]

The NRA is a vested interest group and forms part of the gun lobby. You make it sound like the NRA is special for wanting to prevent criminals and mentally ill people owning weapons. Surely that is just common sense and a universal want in any civilised country?

You need to read my post again. Especially note "The NRA wants to prevent the possession and use of firearms by criminals and mentally unfit persons. But the NRA insists that it be done without infringing upon the Second Amendment rights of mentally fit, law-abiding citizens." That is an important distinction!

Let's define mentally ill or term mentally fit. I think a good argument that a majority of those Knob Creek NRA machine gun totung guys are mentally ill and that any who really believes they need assault weapons and machine guns in US are mentally ill, unless paranoid and delusional thinking is no longer within ambit of mental illness. Most card carrying NRA survivalists types with walk-in gun safes and small arsenals are not poster children for defining the term mentally fit or mentally stable.

This will be a tough term for Courts to define and I am all for it provided NRA polices it's member and forces it's unstable members to cancel membership and turn their weapons in. Otherwise, just more empty rhetoric from money hungry small penile compensating NRA folks. On that note, Merry Christmas everyone, happy holidays, and give an extra big hug to those close and your children if applicable. Let's strive to make the world a better place for our children and be grateful for what we have and who we have in our lives.

When you use terms like " Knob Creek " and "money hungry small penile compensating", you sound more like you are desc ribing the money-grubbing civil-tort lawyers!

Your comment of "mentally ill, unless paranoid and delusional thinking is no longer within ambit of mental illness" fits civil-tort lawyers far more accurately than NRA members!

The United States will be a far better place when the American Bar Association "forces it's unstable members to cancel membership and turn their" licenses to play lawyer.

[gl555]

I got a bridge to sell you!

Wow, so guidable if you believe this nonsense.

The problem with polls is that 9 out of 10 believe the question related to a complete ban on all weapons so NRA and people like you use this misinformation. The majority when asked if they think assault weapons should be banned was 62 per CBS news poll on 12-18-2012. 62 percent also said high capacity clips should be banned on same date. 78 percent required registration of all guns.

I'm reading the Pew poll which says CONTROL not ban.

Really, I see a BAN in these sentences and not a control.

"A ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47"

12/17-18/12

62 37 1

8/7-8/12

57 42 1

"A ban on the sale and possession of equipment known as high-capacity or extended ammunition clips, which allow some guns to shoot more than 10 bullets before they need to be reloaded"

12/17-18/12

62 37 1

8/7-8/12

60 40 1

http://www.people-pr.../12-20-12-2.png

Where is the 'ban'?

Edited December 24, 2012 by gl555

[Baloo22]

You may be referring to the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" of 2005. This was a needed response to a series of frivolous and reckless lawsuits that were intended to drive gun manufacturers and dealers out of business by holding those manufacturers and dealers liable for the criminal acts of third parties who were totally beyond their control. Those lawsuits were a clear misuse of our legal system. Those frivolous lawsuits were the equivalent of suing General Motors or Ford because an individual committed a criminal act using an automobile produced by those companies.

The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products by third parties beyond their control. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible.

Yeah, we are and will be paying for Bush lunacy for next 50 to 100 years. Not sure how one man could cause so much trouble and economic problems in such a short period of time. Happens when everyone becomes near sighted and starts missing the forest for the trees. Sadly, I argued an Amicus Curiae position for Gun companies on one if the sensitive issues and won back during this timeframe.

Still ways to get around and it is amazing how the manufacturer of such dangerous products that serve one purpose and one purpose only thinks it should be absolved from liability. There will be a tort drive against gun companies when time, setting, political atmosphere and court is right. Us mass tort guys are just focusing on banks right now.

It is far more accurate and truthful to state that we will be paying for the lunacy of liberal politicians their liberal allies for next 50 to 100 years. It is sad how much sustained and severe damage that liberals have done to the United States.

Also, you are being truly deceitful saying that the firearms industry "only thinks it should be absolved from liability." The "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" of 2005 allows suits based on knowing violations of federal or state law related to gun sales, or on negligent acts such as sales to a child or an obviously intoxicated person or breach of contract. The act also allows product liability cases involving actual injuries caused by an improperly functioning firearm (as opposed to cases of intentional misuse).

Sorry buddy. You are a symptom of the problem and one cannot reason with the unreasonable. You are driven too much by emotion, fear and entitlement rhetoric spewed from organizations knowing how to use such to manipulate certain segments of our society. Actually, you completely miss what people like me advocate regarding guns due to fear and almost paranoid knee jerk reactions driving your emotional responses. Scarey to know people like this get their hands on weapons so easily. Mandatory federal registration with MMPIs would be a great start.

The deliberate deceit that you practice is much more unreasonable than anything that I have said. The "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" of 2005 was a valid and needed law in response to multiple frivolous bad-faith lawsuits brought on by extremist politicians/organizations and aided by unscrupulous lawyers.

My statement stands as truthful, honest, and accurate. The "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" of 2005 allows suits based on knowing violations of federal or state law related to gun sales, or on negligent acts such as sales to a child or an obviously intoxicated person or breach of contract. The act also allows product liability cases involving actual injuries caused by an improperly functioning firearm (as opposed to cases of intentional misuse).

[F430murci]

You need to read my post again. Especially note "The NRA wants to prevent the possession and use of firearms by criminals and mentally unfit persons. But the NRA insists that it be done without infringing upon the Second Amendment rights of mentally fit, law-abiding citizens." That is an important distinction!

Let's define mentally ill or term mentally fit. I think a good argument that a majority of those Knob Creek NRA machine gun totung guys are mentally ill and that any who really believes they need assault weapons and machine guns in US are mentally ill, unless paranoid and delusional thinking is no longer within ambit of mental illness. Most card carrying NRA survivalists types with walk-in gun safes and small arsenals are not poster children for defining the term mentally fit or mentally stable.

This will be a tough term for Courts to define and I am all for it provided NRA polices it's member and forces it's unstable members to cancel membership and turn their weapons in. Otherwise, just more empty rhetoric from money hungry small penile compensating NRA folks. On that note, Merry Christmas everyone, happy holidays, and give an extra big hug to those close and your children if applicable. Let's strive to make the world a better place for our children and be grateful for what we have and who we have in our lives.

When you use terms like " Knob Creek " and "money hungry small penile compensating", you sound more like you are desc ribing the money-grubbing civil-tort lawyers!

Your comment of "mentally ill, unless paranoid and delusional thinking is no longer within ambit of mental illness" fits civil-tort lawyers far more accurately than NRA members!

The United States will be a far better place when the American Bar Association "forces it's unstable members to cancel membership and turn their" licenses to play lawyer.

Post 89 says it all. Haha, all lawyers go through very stringent background checks including the execution of HIPPA forms for all psychological, counseling and drug or alcohol notes and records as well as FBI background check. I am totally fine if all gun owners had to go through same and guns were taken away from those that could not pass such a rigorous background check.

[F430murci]

I got a bridge to sell you!

Wow, so guidable if you believe this nonsense.

The problem with polls is that 9 out of 10 believe the question related to a complete ban on all weapons so NRA and people like you use this misinformation. The majority when asked if they think assault weapons should be banned was 62 per CBS news poll on 12-18-2012. 62 percent also said high capacity clips should be banned on same date. 78 percent required registration of all guns.

I'm reading the Pew poll which says CONTROL not ban.

Really, I see a BAN in these sentences and not a control.

"A ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47"

12/17-18/12

62 37 1

8/7-8/12

57 42 1

"A ban on the sale and possession of equipment known as high-capacity or extended ammunition clips, which allow some guns to shoot more than 10 bullets before they need to be reloaded"

12/17-18/12

62 37 1

8/7-8/12

60 40 1

http://www.people-pr.../12-20-12-2.png

Where is the 'ban'?

Haha, like the second word of each sentence spelled as "ban" of questions I quoted from polls. Twilight zone or just English as second language.

[gl555]

Haha, like the second word of each sentence spelled as "ban" of questions I quoted from polls. Twilight zone or just English as second language.

"Forty-nine percent of those polled said it’s more important to control gun ownership, compared to 42 percent who say it’s more important to protect Americans’ rights to own guns, according to a Pew Research Center Poll."

Controlling gun ownership is definitely not banning all guns. And yet 42% of Americans are against it. It's simple as that. Try to spin it or read it in a different way all you want. It won't make any difference. Almost half of America, days after a school massacre are still against gun control and that's that.

[F430murci]

Haha, like the second word of each sentence spelled as "ban" of questions I quoted from polls. Twilight zone or just English as second language.

"Forty-nine percent of those polled said it’s more important to control gun ownership, compared to 42 percent who say it’s more important to protect Americans’ rights to own guns, according to a Pew Research Center Poll."

Controlling gun ownership is definitely not banning all guns. And yet 42% of Americans are against it. It's simple as that. Try to spin it or read it in a different way all you want. It won't make any difference. Almost half of America, days after a school massacre are still against gun control and that's that.

62 percent say ban certain stuff and even higher percentage say control with federal regulation through registration. Those are means to control gun sales and ownership with strong majority in favor. I even cited polls from NRA members showing strong majority favoring several measures to control and regulate ownership. Not huge logical leaps to understand and it is unfortunate if you cannot see and comprehend the dynamics and perceptions of questions and rationale behind more focused questions.

[gl555]

Haha, like the second word of each sentence spelled as "ban" of questions I quoted from polls. Twilight zone or just English as second language.

"Forty-nine percent of those polled said it’s more important to control gun ownership, compared to 42 percent who say it’s more important to protect Americans’ rights to own guns, according to a Pew Research Center Poll."

Controlling gun ownership is definitely not banning all guns. And yet 42% of Americans are against it. It's simple as that. Try to spin it or read it in a different way all you want. It won't make any difference. Almost half of America, days after a school massacre are still against gun control and that's that.

62 percent say ban certain stuff and even higher percentage say control with federal regulation through registration. Those are means to control gun sales and ownership with strong majority in favor. I even cited polls from NRA members showing strong majority favoring several measures to control and regulate ownership. Not huge logical leaps to understand and it is unfortunate if you cannot see and comprehend the dynamics and perceptions of questions and rationale behind more focused questions.

I don't know which poll you're reading but those numbers don't appear on the Pew poll when it's obvious I've been talking about the Pew poll all along. Don't try to lie or mislead then pretend you're smarter when you're obviously full of crap. I sent you the link to the Pew poll while it looks like you're pulling numbers out of your ass.

Edited December 24, 2012 by gl555

[submaniac]

Haha, all lawyers go through very stringent background checks including the execution of HIPPA forms for all psychological, counseling and drug or alcohol notes and records as well as FBI background check. I am totally fine if all gun owners had to go through same and guns were taken away from those that could not pass such a rigorous background check.

The background check to purchase a firearm is already comparable to the background check to practice law. If you purchase a firearm (which from your post it appears you have never done). They run a computerized background check on you for criminal felony convictions and whether or not you are subject to a restraining order. The federal form 4473 requires you to disclose any mental health issues you may have.

There is no requirement I am aware of to submit a HIPAA waiver for admission to practice. From an admissions perspective of a state bar, it would not be practical for them to obtain all the medical records of every single applicant to screen for mental illness.

I do think HIPAA is THE source of the problem in regards to firearms. When a person seeks psychiatric help for the mental health professional cannot disclose the mental problem. I think it should be disclosed to the ATF to red flag any purchase of firearms. However, the rights of the mentally ill to keep their mental illness secret, supercedes the right of the public to avoid having firearms fall into the hands of the mentally ill.

[F430murci]

Haha, like the second word of each sentence spelled as "ban" of questions I quoted from polls. Twilight zone or just English as second language.

"Forty-nine percent of those polled said it’s more important to control gun ownership, compared to 42 percent who say it’s more important to protect Americans’ rights to own guns, according to a Pew Research Center Poll."

Controlling gun ownership is definitely not banning all guns. And yet 42% of Americans are against it. It's simple as that. Try to spin it or read it in a different way all you want. It won't make any difference. Almost half of America, days after a school massacre are still against gun control and that's that.

62 percent say ban certain stuff and even higher percentage say control with federal regulation through registration. Those are means to control gun sales and ownership with strong majority in favor. I even cited polls from NRA members showing strong majority favoring several measures to control and regulate ownership. Not huge logical leaps to understand and it is unfortunate if you cannot see and comprehend the dynamics and perceptions of questions and rationale behind more focused questions.

I don't know which poll you're reading but those numbers don't appear on the Pew poll when it's obvious I've been talking about the Pew poll all along. Don't try to lie or mislead then pretend you're smarter when you're obviously full of crap. I sent you the link to the Pew poll while it looks like you're pulling numbers out of your ass.

Here is CBS poll I cited so I will quote.

    Favor Oppose Unsure    

    % % %    

 

 

"A background check on anyone attempting to purchase a gun in order to determine whether the prospective buyer has been convicted of a felony"

 

12/17-18/12

95 5 -    

 

8/7-8/12

96 4 -    

             

 

"A ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47"

 

12/17-18/12

62 37 1    

 

8/7-8/12

57 42 1    

             

 

"A ban on the sale and possession of equipment known as high-capacity or extended ammunition clips, which allow some guns to shoot more than 10 bullets before they need to be reloaded"

 

12/17-18/12

62 37 1    

 

8/7-8/12

60 40 1    

             

 

"Preventing certain people, such as convicted felons or people with mental health problems, from owning guns"

 

12/17-18/12

92 8 1    

 

8/7-8/12

91 8 1    

             

 

"Limiting the number of guns an individual can own"

 

12/17-18/12

48 52 -    

 

8/7-8/12

45 54 1    

             

 

"Requiring gun owners to register their guns with the local government"

 

12/17-18/12

78 22 -    

 

8/7-8/12

76 23 1    

             

[gl555]

Here is CBS poll I cited so I will quote.

Favor Oppose Unsure

% % %

"A background check on anyone attempting to purchase a gun in order to determine whether the prospective buyer has been convicted of a felony"

12/17-18/12

95 5 -

8/7-8/12

96 4 -

"A ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47"

12/17-18/12

62 37 1

8/7-8/12

57 42 1

"A ban on the sale and possession of equipment known as high-capacity or extended ammunition clips, which allow some guns to shoot more than 10 bullets before they need to be reloaded"

12/17-18/12

62 37 1

8/7-8/12

60 40 1

"Preventing certain people, such as convicted felons or people with mental health problems, from owning guns"

12/17-18/12

92 8 1

8/7-8/12

91 8 1

"Limiting the number of guns an individual can own"

12/17-18/12

48 52 -

8/7-8/12

45 54 1

"Requiring gun owners to register their guns with the local government"

12/17-18/12

78 22 -

8/7-8/12

76 23 1

Good for you! This is the link to the full Pew poll.

http://www.people-press.org/2012/12/20/after-newtown-modest-change-in-opinion-about-gun-control/1/

[F430murci]

Haha, all lawyers go through very stringent background checks including the execution of HIPPA forms for all psychological, counseling and drug or alcohol notes and records as well as FBI background check. I am totally fine if all gun owners had to go through same and guns were taken away from those that could not pass such a rigorous background check.

The background check to purchase a firearm is already comparable to the background check to practice law. If you purchase a firearm (which from your post it appears you have never done). They run a computerized background check on you for criminal felony convictions and whether or not you are subject to a restraining order. The federal form 4473 requires you to disclose any mental health issues you may have.

There is no requirement I am aware of to submit a HIPAA waiver for admission to practice. From an admissions perspective of a state bar, it would not be practical for them to obtain all the medical records of every single applicant to screen for mental illness.

I do think HIPAA is THE source of the problem in regards to firearms. When a person seeks psychiatric help for the mental health professional cannot disclose the mental problem. I think it should be disclosed to the ATF to red flag any purchase of firearms. However, the rights of the mentally ill to keep their mental illness secret, supercedes the right of the public to avoid having firearms fall into the hands of the mentally ill.

They can and have to disclose if HIPPA form completed and to practice law you have to agree to produce all records related to mental treatment and diagnosis. Seems like those buying assault weapons with 30 shot clips should be at least required to have same mental check as those practicing law when at least lawyers have shown enough stability to make it through 7 years of college whereas guy can buy Bushmaster with a 6th grade education without a background check at a gun show from a private seller.

[F430murci]

Here is CBS poll I cited so I will quote.

Favor Oppose Unsure

% % %

"A ban on the sale and possession of equipment known as high-capacity or extended ammunition clips, which allow some guns to shoot more than 10 bullets before they need to be reloaded"

"Preventing certain people, such as convicted felons or people with mental health problems, from owning guns"

"Requiring gun owners to register their guns with the local government"

Good for you! This is the link to the full Pew poll.

http://www.people-pr...-gun-control/1/

So are you saying 62% does not think that assault weapons should be banned, 62% does not think high capacity clips should be banned, something like 92% does not think some form of registration should be required.

You guys cite ambiguous questions that are inconsistent with very specific questions that actually show what people think.

BTW, here is the NRA poll numbers I posted before which shows vast majority of NRA members believes gun control measures are needed and that NRA rhetoric is nit necessarily consistent with mist of it's members. 1/4 of the NRA members are absolute nut cases at extreme ends of public views.

• 74 percent of NRA members and 87 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun.

• 79 percent of NRA members and 80 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees - a measure recently endorsed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry.

• 75 percent of NRA members believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants who have not committed any violent misdemeanors, including assault.

• 74 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who have completed gun safety training.

• 68 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who do not have prior arrests for domestic violence.

• 63 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants 21 years of age or older.

• The NRA rank and file also supports barring people on terror watch lists from buying guns (71 percent) and believe the law should require gun owners to alert police to lost and stolen guns (64 percent). The NRA's Washington office strongly opposes both measures.

Here us the

Edited December 24, 2012 by Scott

[F430murci]

Haha, all lawyers go through very stringent background checks including the execution of HIPPA forms for all psychological, counseling and drug or alcohol notes and records as well as FBI background check. I am totally fine if all gun owners had to go through same and guns were taken away from those that could not pass such a rigorous background check.

The background check to purchase a firearm is already comparable to the background check to practice law. If you purchase a firearm (which from your post it appears you have never done). They run a computerized background check on you for criminal felony convictions and whether or not you are subject to a restraining order. The federal form 4473 requires you to disclose any mental health issues you may have.

There is no requirement I am aware of to submit a HIPAA waiver for admission to practice. From an admissions perspective of a state bar, it would not be practical for them to obtain all the medical records of every single applicant to screen for mental illness.

I do think HIPAA is THE source of the problem in regards to firearms. When a person seeks psychiatric help for the mental health professional cannot disclose the mental problem. I think it should be disclosed to the ATF to red flag any purchase of firearms. However, the rights of the mentally ill to keep their mental illness secret, supercedes the right of the public to avoid having firearms fall into the hands of the mentally ill.

Nope not all. Whack felons can easily buy Bushmasters at gun shows from private sellers.

The federal registration for class IIi for all weapons is a great idea because it would close that loop hole but gun dealers do nit want it because they can sell their assault weapons to their buddies who are private that sell them to just anyone including Mexican cartel members at gun shows.

Research class III registration and you will see how it works. Puts people in jail for a long time if selling to wrong person.

The mental thing is huge according to NRA so why not do mental background checks on people wanting to purchase guns and make is part of federal registration criteria so those violating go to jail. NRA does not want because a huge portion if their members would not pass.

[gl555]

Here is CBS poll I cited so I will quote.

Good for you! This is the link to the full Pew poll.

http://www.people-pr...-gun-control/1/

So are you saying 62% does not think that assault weapons should be banned, 62% does not think high capacity clips should be banned, something like 92% does not think some form of registration should be required.

You guys cite ambiguous questions that are inconsistent with very specific questions that actually show what people think.

BTW, here is the NRA poll numbers I posted before which shows vast majority of NRA members believes gun control measures are needed and that NRA rhetoric is nit necessarily consistent with mist of it's members. 1/4 of the NRA members are absolute nut cases at extreme ends of public views.

• 74 percent of NRA members and 87 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun.

• 79 percent of NRA members and 80 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees - a measure recently endorsed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry.

• 75 percent of NRA members believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants who have not committed any violent misdemeanors, including assault.

• 74 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who have completed gun safety training.

• 68 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who do not have prior arrests for domestic violence.

• 63 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants 21 years of age or older.

• The NRA rank and file also supports barring people on terror watch lists from buying guns (71 percent) and believe the law should require gun owners to alert police to lost and stolen guns (64 percent). The NRA's Washington office strongly opposes both measures.

Here us the

I took a careful look at the CBS poll and right in the end, I noticed they oversampled Democrats, 36% over Democrats as opposed to 24% Republicans, Yeah this is a very fair poll as we all know Dems are all for guns.

Don't they do background checks already on people wanting to buy guns legally? I didn't know they sold guns legally to criminals. Oh wait, criminals don't get their guns legally. Case in point, the Sandy Hook killer. He tries to buy a gun legally and fails. Background checks work! So what does he do? He murders his mother and uses her's. Even if mommy didn't possess firearms, with 300 million guns out there, I'm pretty sure he would have found someone else to murder and steal the guns from. That's my point all along. No matter what you do to prevent a nutjob from getting a firearm legally, he can always get one illegally.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Scott

[Baloo22]

Haha, all lawyers go through very stringent background checks including the execution of HIPPA forms for all psychological, counseling and drug or alcohol notes and records as well as FBI background check. I am totally fine if all gun owners had to go through same and guns were taken away from those that could not pass such a rigorous background check.

The background check to purchase a firearm is already comparable to the background check to practice law. If you purchase a firearm (which from your post it appears you have never done). They run a computerized background check on you for criminal felony convictions and whether or not you are subject to a restraining order. The federal form 4473 requires you to disclose any mental health issues you may have.

There is no requirement I am aware of to submit a HIPAA waiver for admission to practice. From an admissions perspective of a state bar, it would not be practical for them to obtain all the medical records of every single applicant to screen for mental illness.

I do think HIPAA is THE source of the problem in regards to firearms. When a person seeks psychiatric help for the mental health professional cannot disclose the mental problem. I think it should be disclosed to the ATF to red flag any purchase of firearms. However, the rights of the mentally ill to keep their mental illness secret, supercedes the right of the public to avoid having firearms fall into the hands of the mentally ill.

Nope not all. Whack felons can easily buy Bushmasters at gun shows from private sellers. The federal registration for class IIi for all weapons is a great idea because it would close that loop hole but gun dealers do nit want it because they can sell their assault weapons to their buddies who are private that sell them to just anyone including Mexican cartel members at gun shows.

Research class III registration and you will see how it works. Puts people in jail for a long time if selling to wrong person. The mental thing is huge according to NRA so why not do mental background checks on people wanting to purchase guns and make is part of federal registration criteria so those violating go to jail. NRA does not want because a huge portion if their members would not pass.

There is no need for any separate "mental background checks". Better yet, specify which mental illness diagnoses will disqualify a person from firearm purchase and then mandate that the treating physician report it for entry into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Rest assured, the very minute a requirement like that is introduced is when the whack lawyers will force it to a screeching halt.

If you are interested in stopping the transfer of "assault weapons" to Mexican cartel members, you need to start at the lead transfer violator, the U.S. Department of Justice. It's being mismanaged by whack lawyer Eric Holder in the Administration of whack lawyer Barak Obama. It has been shown that they are leading the way in transfer of "assault weapons" to Mexican cartel members.

The reality of the situation is that, to get what you are saying you want, you will have more problems with the whack lawyers than you will with the NRA !!!!

[JimsKnight]

If the US ever loses it's 2nd Amendment then the rest of you are in a lot of trouble from when Tyranny really starts kicking in doors!

You libs need to jack in the hating and get with freedom before it's too late...

[simple1]

If the US ever loses it's 2nd Amendment then the rest of you are in a lot of trouble from when Tyranny really starts kicking in doors!

You libs need to jack in the hating and get with freedom before it's too late...

Please explain how a tyrannical government would get into power in the USA.

[Mosha]

Another shooting in NY State.Victims are volunteer firemen putting out a fire.

[Keesters]

Why the need for a gun? Aside from sport, hunting and criminal activity I assume it to be self-defense. We have effective modern self-defense products available such as Mace, Tasers, stun guns etc. that can disable an attacker without killing them. None of these could be used to slaughter 20 innocent six- and seven-year-old children. Wouldn't promotion of those rather than guns be a better way to "arm" the people and defend themselves in what seems to be a very violent society.

[JDGRUEN]

Another factor: Members of the U;S. House of Representatives and Senators (Senate) like to be re-elected to office. They know if they vote for some strict gun control bill that they run a strong chance of NOT being relected next time... The Members of the House have to run for re-election every two years. The House of Representatives has a majority of Republican ... Guess what is Not going to happen in the House...

Yes and that is why the PEOPLE must rise if they really want change and DEMAND change. Not with guns. Not with the NRA. With votes. Many people thought Obama was toast for a second term but the people decided differently. A hard road to control guns? Yes. Impossible? If so, what kind of democracy is that?

The U.S. is a Repbulic not a Democracy ... and besides if you are talking about a majority vote - then the gun advocates are in the majority - sounds democratic to me...

No, most people believe in some sort of gun control and a string majority believe in banning assault weapons and going back to pre2004 laws so maybe get ya facts a but straighter before during off silly misleading posts.

A year from now you can tell me how much change there has been in gun control ... nothing much will happen regardless of what some people want.

[JDGRUEN]

There won't be any new U.S. Gun Control legislation without the U.S. House of Representatives voting in the majority to pass such laws... Gun control fanatics do not have sway over the majority of the House. Nothing will pass beyond lip service ... so folks just keep on screeching about guns...

[submaniac]

We have effective modern self-defense products available such as Mace, Tasers, stun guns etc. that can disable an attacker without killing them.

Not as effective as you would think, and have their own problems. Mace is not effective against all people. Ex gf was LAPD cop. In the academy, she was sprayed with pepper spray as a part of the training. Turns out that she was one of the people whose genes make them immune to pepper spray. (Yes there are about 5% of the population who are genetically immune to pepper spray.) Another story, while a few years out from the academy she was called to assist another cop. The cop had been doing routine patrol and approached a man who was simply standing by a fence. The man then proceeded to BITE the side of the cop's face and would not let go. The man was high on PCP. People who are high on certain drugs (such as PCP, meth, yabaa) have almost superhuman ability and resistance to less than lethal force. Tasers? Well first off, for a while tasers were banned by the LAPD because they can actually cause death. (Like heart attacks.) Secondly, a taser has a very short range. Let's imagine a scenario where someone breaks into your home. Say he doesn't have a gun, but has a knife. Do you really want to get that close up to him that you are within the striking distance of the knife? You will pretty much have to if you are armed with a taser. And, (not that this would happen in Thailand) if he's wearing a heavy coat, you may have a problem.

[mania]

If the US ever loses it's 2nd Amendment then the rest of you are in a lot of trouble from when Tyranny really starts kicking in doors!

You libs need to jack in the hating and get with freedom before it's too late...

Please explain how a tyrannical government would get into power in the USA.

Same as anywhere else,

It starts by slipping a link onto a chain one link at a time.

Slowly adding links so as to not be noticed.

When the chains are long enough,heavy enough,strong enough

to bind them the citizens have now become subjects.