Paul Ryan 2016 stance on gun control? (amended title)

[TexasGal]

This is somewhat off topic, but relates to the question of a candidate for office pushes for more of the mentally ill to be added to the background check more consistently; Obviously anyone who has,or has tried, to harm others should be. But what about those who have only received a diagnosis but have never given any indication of violence? Psychiatry is fraught with error. Add that to the political leanings of most in the field and we see why checks and balances are needed. We all want anyone who is a known danger to be in NICS, but I hope we do not create a system in which the mistakenly diagnosed or the willfully misdiagnosed have no recourse. Especially if the laws are later amended to include even the milder forms of mental disorders. I am hopeful we put in place a system that protects people on both sides.

[Rrash]

I don't have [a problem with] ...any tighter measure that would restrict the mentally ill's access to firearms. Those do not necessarily restrict the 2A - as long as you aren't a felon or someone who struggles with an illness that can statistically be linked to mass shootings.

I probably could have worded that a little better. I do not mean "any" as in, "any or all" gun control measure that addresses mentally ill. I mean that I would not have a problem with Paul Ryan (or any person) taking a long hard look at some statistics that seem to show up repeatedly with these mass shooters and looking for an effective solution. "Any," as in "a specific" law that could effectively make you, me, our children, etc. safer, as its true goal (and we all know that politics are going to find a way into these), I personally would be interested in considering. I think vets, preachers, etc. should have the same access as I do to firearms - provided you and I do not fit the mold that shows up every time one of these nut jobs uses your's and my right to own a firearm to inflict death and terror on innocent people. I work at a church myself, I've been asked if I'm "ADD" before, and my wife at times would probably consider me crazy . I understand there is some subjectivity to any bill like this, and I would be cautious as to how it would have to be written. I'm just not opposed to questioning our options.

As with any right, using the liberty you and I are so blessed to have as an avenue to inflict harm on the innocent, to infringe on why that became a right in the first place (to enforce "...certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...") - thats not a right - thats exploitation; its a form of tyranny. Thats what was done by these mass murders. I am simply not for the perversion of our rights by someone who has ill intentions.

Personally, I think that we spend way too much time (American people as a whole, not you and I specifically) trying to legislate something that you can't control with rules - morality, personal, and social responsibility. It isn't the guns, video games, large sodas, cars, etc.; its that culturally, we get away with blaming our responsibilities on other things or people. We (the People) should stop trying to use statistics to fix our problems (which at best tell us what/where/when/how/why) and take a look at ourselves, our education system, our budget, our roles as parents, etc. While that seems to contradict everything I said above this paragraph, I would argue there is a balance between preventing the affect (a good law's responsibility - i.e. making it harder for a danger to society to obtain a gun, be it a criminal or a person with homicidal thoughts) and addressing the cause before it becomes a problem (our responsibility). The less responsibility we take upon ourselves, the more laws will try to do it for us.

Think what you want about me, I respect all of you and your concerns. Rest assured, I am in the corner of every law abiding gun owner on our rights.
Enough hijacking of this thread. My apologies.

[Liberty]

Personally, I think that we spend way too much time (American people as a whole, not you and I specifically) trying to legislate something that you can't control with rules - morality, personal, and social responsibility.

Well Said.

[MeMelYup]

Here are some of my thoughts on listing a person with a possible mental problem.
i.e. adding someone to NICS because of a mental instability and is on an altering med. When they are taken off the med and no longer an instability, they should no longer be on the no buy list. There needs to be legislated a way to list them then remove them. There needs to be a panel (or more than one) in each state, made up of Doctors of psychology, medical Dr. and lawyers that scrutinize each case as to whether it be added or removed. There need to be prerequisites from the Feds so that all 50 states have the same requirements. The states must set criteria for their boards/panel(s). The names on NICS (or whatever list) must be reviewed every 2 to 3 years (from the time it is entered on the list) to see if it is to remain on the list. The families must also be able to petition the court to add or remove someone from the list.

[mr surveyor]

no federalization

no compromise