A "common sense" proposal that will piss off both sides

[VikingsGuy]

18 U.S. Code § 831 - Prohibited transactions involving nuclear materials

www.law.cornell.edu

That's why. You can "own" one, you just can't get the nuclear material.

But you already knew that.

Don't go all Clinton, "depends on the meaning of what is, is", on us. If there is no nuke material it is not a nuke. Also, the explosives used to initiate, several essential control elements, etc are also regulated. Your rationale would be like saying you could have all the firearms you want without restriction but you can't have firing pins, barrels or ammunition.

 

[BuzzH]

I’m not the board certified physicians, psychologists etc conducting these studies, but their contact information is pretty readily available. Maybe ask them?

And thankfully you're not...

I understand the question was pretty tough to answer.

 

[RobertD]

I honestly didn't know people still use the "violent video games" argument.

I want to retain my rights to listen to rap music and play violent video games just as I want to retain my right to own guns. I am a law abiding citizen after all.

 

[QuazyQuinton]

I enter with some trepidation here, because I'm not sure how much I know.

I find it interesting to compare two aspects of this conversation. We recognize that wading into gun control is a social/political/legal morass that virtually always generates more heat than light. Indeed it is and does, particularly because it strikes at the subject of Constitutional rights. Then we fling around "improve mental health" and "reform mental health" as though that's the thing we are just overlooking. As a nurse who spends some time in the ER, I have a window into mental health. Granted, I see the worst side of it, and I have a very cynical view of the total failure of mental health care in our society. There are success stories, but I don't usually see them in my line of work.

What I do see is that mental health care is very complex and actually strikes at many of the same Constitutional rights issues as gun control. Can you be held against your will for being crazy? What about the person who is acting erratically but hasn't harmed anyone? What level of threat rises to the level of taking people's guns away? How do you decide a person is now stable to be able to return their guns? How does due process work if you end up in the ER on a Saturday night at 11pm? Do I have the right to search every patient's backpack when they present to the ER? Only if they look homeless? Only if they make threats? Only if they say there is a gun or knife in the backpack? These are not far off hypotheticals in mental health care; these are Day 1 realities. ER nurses constantly work with a vague threat of assault and/or kidnapping charges if they don't respond correctly to a mental health patient.

What I'm saying is that gun control may be a deep pit, but I actually think mental health is a deeper pit. Wish I had better answers.

QQ

 

[VikingsGuy]

And thankfully you're not...

I understand the question was pretty tough to answer.

Come on folks - we made it over #150 and kept it clean - don't start with the inter-personal squabbling.

 

[TheJason]

Maybe your kid doesn’t need seven pharmaceuticals. Maybe he just needs to go split some firewood, and for his dad to beat his ass for lying and for his mom to make a nice dinner, for the family to all sit down and have together.

Please elaborate.

 

[Shangobango]

So……there is a line now

“Arms” could be anything from a rock to a nuclear weapon.

You can’t own a nuke now, so are your rights being “infringed”?

The Constitution is and always has been a living, breathing, amendable idea

The second “amendment” wasn’t there to begin with.

I’ll ask again, are we breaking the 2A by not allowing every citizen access to nukes?

HC mags, semi autos, etc can all be debated

My view of this specific topic has evolved over the last few years.

HC mags, semi-auto's, etc. affect my ability to protect my person so I don't think they fall in the same category as a nuke or an attack helicopter.

But then again the argument can be made that we do own nukes and attack helicopters by proxy. We just let the government maintain, manage, and wield them in or stead lol.

 

[A207X2]

Don't go all Clinton, "depends on the meaning of what is, is", on us. If there is no nuke material it is not a nuke. Also, the explosives used to initiate, several essential control elements, etc are also regulated. Your rationale would be like saying you could have all the firearms you want without restriction but you can't have firing pins, barrels or ammunition.

I was replying to the exaggerated extreme case (kinda like trope) that was present to me.

 

[RobertD]

Also, I don't actually see the media glorification element that a lot of people complain about. I feel like media in general have gotten much better about that since around the Stoneman Douglas HS shooting. Just my observation.

 

[LopeHunter]

It was, he was contacted by local police regarding mental health concerns. The outcome is obvious now, but the need for forced mental health care in today's world is obvious.

I recall some of the high schoolers being interviewed after the Colorado murders by the two student shooters. Teachers were interviewed as well. When they were asked if the shooters concerned them previously to the murders the answers were varied but one teacher said if she was making a list of the top dozen students she feared would intentionally cause death to other students...the shooters were not on that list. That tells me there are a lot of damaged kids out there. They walk among us and our families. We can ignore the mental health aspect. We should expect more of the same, though.

 

[QuazyQuinton]

I enter with some trepidation here, because I'm not sure how much I know.

I find it interesting to compare two aspects of this conversation. We recognize that wading into gun control is a social/political/legal morass that virtually always generates more heat than light. Indeed it is and does, particularly because it strikes at the subject of Constitutional rights. Then we fling around "improve mental health" and "reform mental health" as though that's the thing we are just overlooking. As a nurse who spends some time in the ER, I have a window into mental health. Granted, I see the worst side of it, and I have a very cynical view of the total failure of mental health care in our society. There are success stories, but I don't usually see them in my line of work.

What I do see is that mental health care is very complex and actually strikes at many of the same Constitutional rights issues as gun control. Can you be held against your will for being crazy? What about the person who is acting erratically but hasn't harmed anyone? What level of threat rises to the level of taking people's guns away? How do you decide a person is now stable to be able to return their guns? How does due process work if you end up in the ER on a Saturday night at 11pm? Do I have the right to search every patient's backpack when they present to the ER? Only if they look homeless? Only if they make threats? Only if they say there is a gun or knife in the backpack? These are not far off hypotheticals in mental health care; these are Day 1 realities. ER nurses constantly work with a vague threat of assault and/or kidnapping charges if they don't respond correctly to a mental health patient.

What I'm saying is that gun control may be a deep pit, but I actually think mental health is a deeper pit. Wish I had better answers.

QQ

Oh yeah, what about the guy who says, "I won't seek mental health care, because then they'll take away my guns?"

 

[RobertD]

I recall some of the high schoolers being interviewed after the Colorado murders by the two student shooters. Teachers were interviewed as well. When they were asked if the shooters concerned them previously to the murders the answers were varied but one teacher said if she was making a list of the top dozen students she feared would intentionally cause death to other students...the shooters were not on that list. That tells me there are a lot of damaged kids out there. They walk among us and our families. We can ignore the mental health aspect. We should expect more of the same, though.

Are you talking about Columbine? There's a lot of meat on that bone if so but I wanted to make sure you're talking about that particular shooting before I comment

 

[VikingsGuy]

There was a good April 2018 opinion piece in Politico by Jon Stokes called A Gun Nut's Guide to Gun Control That Actually Works. It outlined, in detail, a system essentially identical to what you proposed. Including hypothetical arguments from "both sides" and rebuttals to them.

I've always thought the piece made an exceptional amount of sense.

Thanks - I like the simplicity.

 

[DouglasR]

Mandatory birth control
Tax incentives for not having children

 

[VikingsGuy]

Mandatory birth control
Tax incentives for not having children

Ahh a recipe for societal collapse . . . doesn't seem like that would reduce violence or improve mental health - MadMax here we come.

(I get you likely offered as #sarcasm)

 

[4ohSick]

My view of this specific topic has evolved over the last few years.

HC mags, semi-auto's, etc. affect my ability to protect my person so I don't think they fall in the same category as a nuke or an attack helicopter.

But then again the argument can be made that we do own nukes and attack helicopters by proxy. We just let the government maintain, manage, and wield them in or stead lol.

Gov't owns HC mags and semi-auto's too, homie.

 

[Beignet]

I'm usually loathe to wade into these conversations where folks can be so impassioned one way or another that their ability to have a reasonable discussion is clouded. But, thanks to VG for starting what seems like reasonable discussion so far.

One idea I've been spitballing is that there's different classifications of firearms. Nothing would be off limits to own that isn't already off limits, but would face more scrutiny on par with their ease of possibly inflicting lethality on a certain scale.

So, say your "Fudd" guns, bolt guns, pump/break shotguns, maybe even revolvers, etc: Pretty easy to get. Say 18 years old to purchase, standard background check no waiting period. No big deal. Go shoot, be careful, and have fun.

Few more classifications for semi-autos, certain handguns, certain capacities and such in the middle here...

Move on up to say, a suppressed AR platform: A bit more difficult to get. Say, 21 years to purchase, waiting period (with the types of NICS extensions VG outlined). A law abiding citizen could still get one, but some angry kid with a credit card can't walk into Joe's Guns & Ammo and walk out with one the same day.

One problem/hesitation, it would take input from folks that actually know about firearms to draft such legislation. In parts of the country where exposure to firearms is less common, everything looks like an assault rifle. I don't really want people who don't know anything about guns making legislation about guns.

Just some loose thoughts inspired by my recently looking into a Euro country's gun laws and realizing I could legally and easily own most of the firearms I currently own in that country based on their own classification system.

 

[Addicting]

Supreme Court ruled on one.

So the second shouldn’t be pushed to get to go thru the same process? If it has the opportunity to hinder these is it not worth the effort? I have a hard time taking your post seriously if your not even willing to try and throw a sorry not sorry argument.

 

[Wild Bill]

I'm curious what the Second Amendment absolutists would say to the Framer's of the Constitution (John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington) if we could time travel them to 2022 and try to explain to them how 19 dead children and 2 dead teachers is all part of an inalienable right? Would they still right it as they did?

 

[VikingsGuy]

And while HT entertains mature debate, the political class carries on with meaningless pandering and virtue signaling. . .

Senate GOP blocks domestic terrorism bill, gun policy debate

Democrats' first attempt at responding to the back-to-back mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde, Texas, failed in the Senate Thursday as Republicans blocked a domestic terrorism bill that would have opened debate on difficult questions surrounding hate crimes and gun safety.

www.startribune.com