John Cornyn calls fror Background Checks

[stevie_d_64]

The GOP will save us.

Anygunanywhere

You forgot something...

Your post needed this (at the end):

----> /sarcasm

[O.F.Fascist]

Hopefully Cornyn has gotten the message that if he supports Universal Background Check many will try their best to see that he is primaried out.

It doesnt seem that this is UBC that he is supporting, but I hope he remembers to vote no on UBC.

[RAM4171]

Ummm...........................shall not be infringed?

[baldeagle]

So this does not increase the number of background checks, but makes background checks which are already required, more probative than they currently are ...to investigate into mental health adjudications?

I might read it later, but busy lately

Click on the link I provided. It's a one page bill. It will take all of 1 minute to read it.

[baldeagle]

Ummm...........................shall not be infringed?

If you are arguing that mentally unstable and dangerous people should be allowed to buy and own guns, then you are in a very tiny minority.

[RAM4171]

Ummm...........................shall not be infringed?

If you are arguing that mentally unstable and dangerous people should be allowed to buy and own guns, then you are in a very tiny minority.

Pardon me baldeagle I have great respect for you and always enjoy reading your posts. However, I am an absolutionist when it comes to the Constitution and the Billl of Rights, and "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means exactly that which it states. I believe any new laws as well as all of those currently in place do just that, infringe on our rights. Pardon me for believing wholeheartedly in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

[baldeagle]

Ummm...........................shall not be infringed?

If you are arguing that mentally unstable and dangerous people should be allowed to buy and own guns, then you are in a very tiny minority.

Pardon me baldeagle I have great respect for you and always enjoy reading your posts. However, I am an absolutionist when it comes to the Constitution and the Billl of Rights, and "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means exactly that which it states. I believe any new laws as well as all of those currently in place do just that, infringe on our rights. Pardon me for believing wholeheartedly in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I think you are mistaken. Shall not be infringed does not mean we have to be insane and have no laws at all. Allowing mentally disturbed violent people to have access to guns is foolish and puts the people in jeopardy.

The founders of our country had no problem passing laws that regulated firearms, and they were the ones who wrote shall not be infringed.

For example, some of the colonies had laws that prohibited the discharge of firearms in public places except for weddings or funerals (where it was common to do so and still is today in some parts of the world.) Unsafe storage of gunpowder was prohibited in some cities, because it presented a public safety hazard. There were laws regulating hunting, just as there are today, to prevent the decimation of the deer population, and just like today "vermin" could be taken at any time (wild pigs, foxes, coyotes, etc.)

Most of the laws were what I would call common sense. You can't fire into the door of your neighbor's house because someone could be injured, for example. Even ownership of weapons was regulated. You were required to own certain types of guns and certain levels of powder and ball in preparation for the common defense.

So the idea that shall not be infringed means no laws can be passed doesn't match what our forefathers did in practice. The difference between their laws and the ones frequently proposed now is that their laws addressed irresponsible gun ownership whereas the current laws simply seek to take away weapons and ammunition. There is no way that can be justified under the Constitution.

No right is unlimited. Free speech does not mean you may speak at any time in any place about any thing any more than shall not be infringed means you can walk down Main Street firing your gun in the air to celebrate your son's birth. Along with rights comes the responsibility to exercise them sensibly. Those who cannot or will not do so are rightfully disarmed by the people for the safety of all.

[anygunanywhere]

With the current drive of the extreme left to eliminate firearm ownership combined with the left wing ownership of the education system (law school) and the predominance of left wing judges, I would not trust my second amendment rights to any court that has the legislated authority to determine my mental fitness to own firearms.

If I were to trust such a court then I would indeed be crazy.

Anygunanywhere

[cw3van]

Ummm...........................shall not be infringed?

If you are arguing that mentally unstable and dangerous people should be allowed to buy and own guns, then you are in a very tiny minority.

Pardon me baldeagle I have great respect for you and always enjoy reading your posts. However, I am an absolutionist when it comes to the Constitution and the Billl of Rights, and "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means exactly that which it states. I believe any new laws as well as all of those currently in place do just that, infringe on our rights. Pardon me for believing wholeheartedly in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I think you are mistaken. Shall not be infringed does not mean we have to be insane and have no laws at all. Allowing mentally disturbed violent people to have access to guns is foolish and puts the people in jeopardy.

The founders of our country had no problem passing laws that regulated firearms, and they were the ones who wrote shall not be infringed.

For example, some of the colonies had laws that prohibited the discharge of firearms in public places except for weddings or funerals (where it was common to do so and still is today in some parts of the world.) Unsafe storage of gunpowder was prohibited in some cities, because it presented a public safety hazard. There were laws regulating hunting, just as there are today, to prevent the decimation of the deer population, and just like today "vermin" could be taken at any time (wild pigs, foxes, coyotes, etc.)

Most of the laws were what I would call common sense. You can't fire into the door of your neighbor's house because someone could be injured, for example. Even ownership of weapons was regulated. You were required to own certain types of guns and certain levels of powder and ball in preparation for the common defense.

So the idea that shall not be infringed means no laws can be passed doesn't match what our forefathers did in practice. The difference between their laws and the ones frequently proposed now is that their laws addressed irresponsible gun ownership whereas the current laws simply seek to take away weapons and ammunition. There is no way that can be justified under the Constitution.

No right is unlimited. Free speech does not mean you may speak at any time in any place about any thing any more than shall not be infringed means you can walk down Main Street firing your gun in the air to celebrate your son's birth. Along with rights comes the responsibility to exercise them sensibly. Those who cannot or will not do so are rightfully disarmed by the people for the safety of all.

Gotta go with baldeagle on this one we have to use sound judgment and yes some firearm regs are good.

[RPB]

With the current drive of the extreme left to eliminate firearm ownership combined with the left wing ownership of the education system (law school) and the predominance of left wing judges, I would not trust my second amendment rights to any court that has the legislated authority to determine my mental fitness to own firearms.

If I were to trust such a court then I would indeed be crazy.

Anygunanywhere

As my mom and I held hands and "skipped" to the car in the parking lot (embarrassing my brother and sister", but we had fun) ... she commented, crazy people all think they are sane, only the sane people know they themselves are a bit nuts.(You have to be a bit crazy to cope with the idiocy of the rest of the Nation sometimes, else you'd move like some Ex-Pats do)

Einstein was crazy, Thomas Edison was nuts to think man could create light...or sound duplication/recording
Charles Manson thinks he's sane ...

So leaving a determination of who and who cannot protect themselves up to Obama's criminal DOJ/Sec of State/Supreme Court/FEDERAL JUDGE nominees/Bloomberg's criminal mayor squad... just makes me a bit uneasy
====================================================
The debate goes back to way before Samuel/Saul's time

Government, a governor --- purpose: to restrict freedom
Freedom= absence of restriction
a motor without a governor can go faster

Do you trust yourself to decide who you should sell to?
Do you want the government to govern whoi ytou can or can't sell to since you have bad judgement and can't be trusted?

Are you the only sane person who should be armed like Mike Bloomberg thinks, and we need regulations for everyone else, but of course your judgement is good, but laws are needed because of "them who are untrustworthy"?

Debate will continue forever

[SamBodie]

I remember when "mentally unstable and dangerous people" were kept where they could not hurt the public. What happend to that?

[OldGrumpy]

Ummm...........................shall not be infringed?

If you are arguing that mentally unstable and dangerous people should be allowed to buy and own guns, then you are in a very tiny minority.

Pardon me baldeagle I have great respect for you and always enjoy reading your posts. However, I am an absolutionist when it comes to the Constitution and the Billl of Rights, and "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means exactly that which it states. I believe any new laws as well as all of those currently in place do just that, infringe on our rights. Pardon me for believing wholeheartedly in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I think you are mistaken. Shall not be infringed does not mean we have to be insane and have no laws at all. Allowing mentally disturbed violent people to have access to guns is foolish and puts the people in jeopardy.

The founders of our country had no problem passing laws that regulated firearms, and they were the ones who wrote shall not be infringed.

For example, some of the colonies had laws that prohibited the discharge of firearms in public places except for weddings or funerals (where it was common to do so and still is today in some parts of the world.) Unsafe storage of gunpowder was prohibited in some cities, because it presented a public safety hazard. There were laws regulating hunting, just as there are today, to prevent the decimation of the deer population, and just like today "vermin" could be taken at any time (wild pigs, foxes, coyotes, etc.)

Most of the laws were what I would call common sense. You can't fire into the door of your neighbor's house because someone could be injured, for example. Even ownership of weapons was regulated. You were required to own certain types of guns and certain levels of powder and ball in preparation for the common defense.

So the idea that shall not be infringed means no laws can be passed doesn't match what our forefathers did in practice. The difference between their laws and the ones frequently proposed now is that their laws addressed irresponsible gun ownership whereas the current laws simply seek to take away weapons and ammunition. There is no way that can be justified under the Constitution.

No right is unlimited. Free speech does not mean you may speak at any time in any place about any thing any more than shall not be infringed means you can walk down Main Street firing your gun in the air to celebrate your son's birth. Along with rights comes the responsibility to exercise them sensibly. Those who cannot or will not do so are rightfully disarmed by the people for the safety of all.

Well said, BaldEagle

[n5wd]

I remember when "mentally unstable and dangerous people" were kept where they could not hurt the public. What happend to that?

You mean something like the North Texas State Hospital at Vernon, where they have locked Maximum Security Unit for adults?

Most folks who are judged incapable of taking care of themselves aren't violent - they may be a danger to themselves (forgetting meds / wandering off from home inadequately clothed, etc.) but they don't require a locked unit. The creep who gets judged as mentally incompetent as a result of a criminal act is the one that gets the locked wards at Vernon, and other state psychiatric hospitals.

BTW - having transported patients there in the past, believe me when I tell you that's one place you don't want to have listed as your residence!

[RAM4171]

Ummm...........................shall not be infringed?

If you are arguing that mentally unstable and dangerous people should be allowed to buy and own guns, then you are in a very tiny minority.

Pardon me baldeagle I have great respect for you and always enjoy reading your posts. However, I am an absolutionist when it comes to the Constitution and the Billl of Rights, and "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means exactly that which it states. I believe any new laws as well as all of those currently in place do just that, infringe on our rights. Pardon me for believing wholeheartedly in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I think you are mistaken. Shall not be infringed does not mean we have to be insane and have no laws at all. Allowing mentally disturbed violent people to have access to guns is foolish and puts the people in jeopardy.

The founders of our country had no problem passing laws that regulated firearms, and they were the ones who wrote shall not be infringed.

I agree that that yes there does need to be some laws regulating the USE of firearms, not the access for law abiding citizens, I should have stated most in lieu of all. "Keep" and "Bear" is what I am absolute on.
Mentally disturbed people will always have access to firearms and no law short of confiscation will ever solve that issue.

For example, some of the colonies had laws that prohibited the discharge of firearms in public places except for weddings or funerals (where it was common to do so and still is today in some parts of the world.) Unsafe storage of gunpowder was prohibited in some cities, because it presented a public safety hazard. There were laws regulating hunting, just as there are today, to prevent the decimation of the deer population, and just like today "vermin" could be taken at any time (wild pigs, foxes, coyotes, etc.)

Again I agree with some regulation on use of firearms to punish those that act irresponsible and put others in jeopordy.

Most of the laws were what I would call common sense. You can't fire into the door of your neighbor's house because someone could be injured, for example. Even ownership of weapons was regulated. You were required to own certain types of guns and certain levels of powder and ball in preparation for the common defense.

Exactly the opposite of what is bing introduced in the legislature currently, and those that are introducing the regulations call their regulations "common sense" as well.

So the idea that shall not be infringed means no laws can be passed doesn't match what our forefathers did in practice. The difference between their laws and the ones frequently proposed now is that their laws addressed irresponsible gun ownership whereas the current laws simply seek to take away weapons and ammunition. There is no way that can be justified under the Constitution.

When I say that I am an absolutionist on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I am saying that I believe fully in the ideas that are put forth in the documents. Are the Constitution and Bill of Right perfect documents? No, but they are probably the best in the world for framing a government. The Fouders knew that they weren't perfect so they provided a way to change them.

No right is unlimited. Free speech does not mean you may speak at any time in any place about any thing any more than shall not be infringed means you can walk down Main Street firing your gun in the air to celebrate your son's birth. Along with rights comes the responsibility to exercise them sensibly. Those who cannot or will not do so are rightfully disarmed by the people for the safety of all.

Yes resposnsibility is definitely the key, and those that act irresposible and act to harm society should have their rights removed. Just don't add more laws and infringements on me for those who are responsible. If they continue to pass more regulations on access to weapons, where do we draw the line? Not one thing that is being proposed would have done anything to slow down Lanza. So adding more regulations because of an event that the said regualtion would have had no impact of preventing is just plain wrong and should not be allowed to be added.

We do not have gun problem, what we have is societal decay. Now that is not an original thought of mine and think most on here would know where it comes form. My point is with out fixing the problem with society absolutely no amount of gun regulations is going to change a thing, in fact many regulations make thing worse for the law abiding. I will not support any more regulations to be passed that will infringe on my rights.

Again baldeagle I have great respect for you, I just can't agree that background checks need to be "fixed" in some way.

[solaritx]

OK, so explain exactly HOW one can get the medical (mental) background information. That door was closed by the Feds years ago.....it's called HIPPA. People pay huge fines (currently it can be up to $10,000 PER PAGE) and can go to jail for releasing medical information to anyone not directly involved in that patient's care.

So by Federal Law, it is illegal to share that information. Now somehow it will be freely shared with others? Again, one Federal law in direct conflict with another law???? brilliant and this new proposal does not address exactly how people or FFL checks can get information that by law they are not allowed to have?