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
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Gabrielle Giffords’ Husband Smacks Down Wayne LaPierre [View all]AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)8. Could have?
Stone-simple step #1: remove the 'incentive' reporting requirement, where states that meet certain reporting criteria get access to a small pool of money, and instead, withhold federal money if they don't comply.
On the other hand, I have no idea why the NRA is opposing universal checks. Doesn't really make any logical sense. The cost is minimal. The delay is minimal. The NRA has supported far more invasive gun control measures in the past, so I can assume this is only a result of the far-right bias of the recent NRA board of directors, which has become increasingly polarized in the last 20 years.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
62 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
There is a huge problem with having guns available only to people with no history of mental health
JDPriestly
Jan 2013
#2
That would make sense except that if keeping and bearing arms is a fundamental right,
JDPriestly
Jan 2013
#50
Also, the decision about what conditions are a mental illness is political and somewhat arbitrary
Blandocyte
Jan 2013
#22
Yes. The diagnosis of just one doctor who might have some ulterior motive or have a problem
JDPriestly
Jan 2013
#43
Being denied a gun > Being shot and killed by someone with mental issues
Tommy_Carcetti
Jan 2013
#54
Your arguments might persuade me, but I'm not sure they would persuade a majority of Supreme
JDPriestly
Jan 2013
#42
If it only affects people who have been committed it would still miss a lot of people and affect
JDPriestly
Jan 2013
#41
When you deny a person a fundamental right, you have to do it very carefully.
JDPriestly
Jan 2013
#51
I've made the same argument regarding a number of your points and on top of those....
tpsbmam
Jan 2013
#59
Almost every state, including non-slaveholding states had the same provision in their state constitu
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2013
#9
A general could use his standing army to take over Congress & the Executive department
Kolesar
Jan 2013
#24
like Edward Teller, Herman Kahn, and the rest of the Powell Memo instrumentalities,
MisterP
Jan 2013
#57