Well, I doubt it will be approved for publication, but here is the respons I posted (under the name "whamprod"):
Small problem with your suggestion regarding form 4473....
Without a necessary adjudication of insanity, anybody could make an accusation of insanity against someone who is not insane, merely for the purpose of stripping that person of a constitutional right with which the accuser disagrees, or for the just as venal purpose of "punishing" someone whom accuser does not like. Requiring adjudication of insanity is what keeps rights alive. How many people, for instance, have been added to the "no-fly" list who have never been part of a terrorist organization or made terroristic threats against anyone? It happens all the time, and the government has conveniently removed itself from accountability regarding maintenance of that list. Once on it, even wrongly so, it is nearly impossible and extremely expensive to get one's self removed from it. How many people have been falsely accused of rape and/or child molestation? It happens, and people have actually been imprisoned on such false charges which were later dropped when the accuser recanted their testimony.
Form 4473 also asks a lot of other questions about criminal convictions, legal residency, spousal abuse, etc. ALL of the answers to these questions can be lied about on the form, but theoretically, all false forms will be rejected by NICS—unless you are Eric Holder's Justice Department instructing conscientious gun sellers to ignore their misgivings and knowingly sell a gun to a suspected cartel member, so that it can be smuggled into Mexico and used to execute hundreds of Mexican nationals in their own country.
Crazy people who have not been adjudicated as insane and who have never had intervention from a psychiatric professional are simply a risk we take as a free society. Time after time after time, the liberal response to tragedy is to advocate for the repression of God-given (or "natural" if you prefer that term) human rights. The Supreme Court of the United States of America has ruled definitively that police have no duty to protect. They don't. So, how do we resolve that? After all, they may not have a duty to protect, but we do have an absolute right to be safe in our persons and property, and any violation of that is a violation of one of the fundamental tenets upon which any orderly society is based.
It is an undeniable fact that when you disarm law-abiding people, only the law-breakers remain armed. Don't believe me? Who owns handguns in Great Britain these days—the law abiding, or the law breakers? That's a valid question because there are still a lot of handguns in the hands of private persons in Great Britain, just not law-abiding persons, and those guns do get used in crimes. Despite all of her draconian gun laws, Great Britain still has gun crime. It has not been eliminated.
When you remove the ability of someone to defend him/herself with a gun from someone who has no such regard for the law, you have committed a great immorality. And that is what is so terribly wrong with the liberal gun control agenda: it is immoral. It states that the life of a law-abiding citizen is worth less than the life of a criminal, and this in a society in which police are under no constitutional obligation to protect the public.
Liberals are actively involved in creating a nation of sheep.....which is perfect for them (the liberals) because it justifies their top-down nanny state utopian ideals.
In a recent interview by an obviously anti-gun biased "journalist," rapper Iced-T was asked if he thought that banning semiautomatic rifles and larger capacity magazines wouldn't prevent another Aurora, Colorado style massacre. He answered, correctly, that no it would not...not even if you successfully removed every one of them from circulation...because crazy Islamists (as opposed to mainstream peaceful muslims) have proven time and again that one person can strap on a suicide vest and take out a hundred innocent victims instead of the dozen or so that this maniac in Aurora killed. It isn't about the gun. It is about the heart of the person wielding it. If that person is driven to kill, and he can't get a gun, he'll use something else. And thanks to the generations of sheep that liberals have been creating, 19 clearly insane people killed 3,000 innocent people on 9/11 with BOXCUTTERS(!!!), because with the exception of Todd Beamer and those few hardy souls on Flight 93, nobody on any of those four airliners had the courage to challenge a maniac with a boxcutter. So now, thanks to those bent, twisted "martyrs of the one truth faith," you and I cannot carry a pair of fingernail clippers or a penknife onboard an airliner. Thanks to someone else with a failed bomb in his panties, we can't carry 3.5 oz of shampoo onto an airplane. That is the typical nanny-state response. It may well be crazy to shoot up a movie theater, but it's even crazier when seemingly free and sovereign citizens make the inexplicably cowardly choice to live in fear and stamp out the natural rights of their fellow citizens in an ultimatey futile attempt to make the world into a kind and gentle place......a world which has never been kind and gentle throughout the entire span of humanity's existence!
No, free societies are not without risks. Dress accordingly. I carry .45 caliber pistol everywhere I go. Everywhere. And no, that does not make me paranoid. It makes me no more and no less paranoid than someone who keeps a fire-extinguisher in their kitchen. And just as that fire-extinguisher doesn't get in the way of the cook's enjoyment of cooking and puttering about their kitchen, that gun on my hip in no way gets in the way of having a normal happy day just like anybody else's normal happy day. It simple means that I have proactively chosen to prepare myself for the however remote possiblity of having to protect myself. That is called "taking responsibility" over that part of my life for which the government is not responsible. If the law prevents me from entering a business with my concealed pistol because of the signs posted on the doors, then being a law abiding citizen, I take my business elsewhere where I will be more welcome. In the meantime, not one single one of those signs will keep the armed felon or the armed maniac from carrying a concealed weapon into that same place. In other words, the signs make it more dangerous rather than less dangerous to enter those places.
The poor people who were shot in that Aurora theater realistically had no logical expectation that this theater was any safer than any other theater, because those signs barring a legally concealed weapon from being carried into the theater were nothing more than......well....theater.
How far have we strayed from the nation's founding principles when the right to free speech includes the right to view and sell pornography made by women who are treated as simple sex objects without a brain; when the "right" to contraception includes the "right" to terminate a human life for the mere convenience of the mother; and when the most basic and fundamental right to keep and bear arms is continually under assault from people who do not basically and fundamentally value human rights? This nation was founded on the principle that our rights are natural. They exist before government exists. They exist because we live and breath. They can only be taken from us by taking our lives away.
There are people today, Roger Ebert among them, who have a bully pulpit not shared by the vast majority of Americans, and who advocate for the crushing of personal freedom because they themselves lack the courage or stamina to face the fact that the world is not the warm, safe womb they wish it were. It is a broken place, full of broken people, some of whom have murderous impulses, and SCOTUS has ruled that we must depend upon ourselves for protection. Roger Ebert, and his kind, wish to remove from us the means of that protection, and that is an immoral position, based upon willful blindness.
And when it comes to the age old real reason behind the 2nd Amendment—not hunting, but protection from a tyrannical government—that tyranny is exactly what the Eberts of the world argue for when they argue for the removal of that most basic right and the right to implement and exercise that right by whatever means the holder of it deems necessary. In a world where you cannot remove obscenity from free speech, asking or requiring citizens to accept limitations on their choice of firearm ownership and use is itself obscene.
