Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: We need more surveillance when it comes to guns [View all]Orrex
(63,264 posts)84. Well...
The specific mental health issue that I am referring to is legitimate. There are prohibited people who are currently excluded from NICS due to state funding gaps. This is something we should correct.
I would like to see such gaps closed, certainly, but I'm concerned that mental illness can be too easily scapegoated as the cause of gun violence. All mental illness is not created equal, after all, so one person's illness might manifest very differently from another's. This also constitutes a serious HIPAA violation likely running up against the 9th Amendment, so it might only pass muster if we evaluate each and every patient on a case-by-case basis.
I think the punishment for 4473 fraud should be much more severe than what you listed.
I'm down with that.
I disagree with the registration, licensing, and insurance requirements as simply nonsense. In my view, those types of requirements are simply intended to burden, harass, and intimidate ordinary Americans who choose to exercise their rights.
I've heard that objection before, and I'm comfortable dismissing it. The same "burden" argument could be made against permit fees and sales tax on gun purchases, for example, and any concerns about "privacy" are refuted by the aforementioned public registries of other information which are much more intrusive. Heck, sex offender registries are famously ill-kept and inconsistent but are easily accessible by anyone. For that matter, the proposed mental health provision would be a much more profound violation of individual privacy, yet many seem to find this acceptable.
Further, if a gun is to be used/maintained solely on private property, then insurance/licensing/registration might not be needed, but once public land becomes involved (even transporting home from point of purchase), then a case can be made that the state has a reasonable interest in the use/transport of firearms on public lands.
On the whole, we do indeed show much more agreement than I'd have anticipated.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
93 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Yes. The mentally ill are more likely to be victims rather than perpetrators of violence.
Kang Colby
Jun 2016
#14
I'm not playing a game. Very rude of you to call gun rights supporters "gun enablers."
Kang Colby
Jun 2016
#68
"Also, a conviction for domestic violence should prohibit future firearm ownership by the abuser. "
beevul
Jun 2016
#85
Mandating government surveillance of private property touches on a few other bits...
TipTok
Jun 2016
#49
The bill of rights is a 'the government shall not' document, not a 'the people can' document.
X_Digger
Jun 2016
#6
If the only requirement to make a law was 'provide for the general welfare', we'd be screwed.
X_Digger
Jun 2016
#21
Ah, yes- the "saving innocents" claim. It's an old and time honored political technique:
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2016
#91
Good luck. And oh... its surrounded by slightly less than a billion square miles of desert.
cherokeeprogressive
Jun 2016
#23
What kind of behavior surveilled on those roads would trigger an investigation?
Marengo
Jun 2016
#76
Controllers always assume that this stuff will only apply to the folks they are afraid of...
TipTok
Jun 2016
#52
You'll never convince a grabber. They think our rights are derived from the courts
Press Virginia
Jun 2016
#38
"Your denial of any lines is a foolish denial." It *would* be, if such a denial had been made.
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2016
#89
The gunners will throw Constitution BS at you, to point of sounding like right wingers.
Hoyt
Jun 2016
#37
Yeah, that pesky constitution bs. If it weren't for that meddling document
Press Virginia
Jun 2016
#39
Gunners are a good example. They'll whine about clip vs. magazine, but can't comprehend
Hoyt
Jun 2016
#46
In the most simplistic form they are manufactured to let yahoos shoot people. Whether it's a clip
Hoyt
Jun 2016
#67
I grew up when the Constitution was used to discriminate. Now it's used to enable bigots,
Hoyt
Jun 2016
#66
The 4th amendment says "right of the people" too. Is that also a collective right in your view?
NutmegYankee
Jun 2016
#51