A "rational" way to prevent gun violence....confiscation!

Well, temporary confiscation but there is no time limit on what is meant by temporary so it could be forever or whatever local law enforcement decides.

This is just one idea (four of five actually) that the Gabriel Giffords group of pushing as a rational gun control measure. So if anyone.....tells you that no one wants to confiscate your guns then here they are.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/opini...ence/14084425/

Did you even read the article pea brain? It was about reporting those at risk. Like they are doing in AZ.

Well, temporary confiscation but there is no time limit on what is meant by temporary so it could be forever or whatever local law enforcement decides.

This is just one idea (four of five actually) that the Gabriel Giffords group of pushing as a rational gun control measure. So if anyone.....tells you that no one wants to confiscate your guns then here they are.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/opini...ence/14084425/ Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

JDIdiot, within the first few sentences of the referenced link, it said the following:

"Talk about keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill."

"We have to address the ease with which mentally unstable individuals obtain the weapons they use to commit suicide and murder."

I suppose in JDIdiot's world "mentally unstable individuals" should have no restrictions limiting their ability to obtain any weapon they would like, should they decide to murder innocent citizens.

You read the article but you didn't understand it did you? Don't answer. It is pretty obvious.

LMAO right Judy...

What makes this loony bitch think that just keeping guns from people who have mental illness will curb gun violence. Mentally ill people have no more of a propensity to violence than other members of society.

Jim
http://depts.washington.edu/mhreport/facts_violence.php

Jesus, Jim! That there might be one of the dumbest questions ever asked.

Jesus, Jim! That there might be one of the dumbest questions ever asked. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Jimbo is starting to sound like a "whiney little bitch."

Jesus, Jim! That there might be one of the dumbest questions ever asked. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

It only sounds stupid to those who don't see the whole picture. First of all Gifford's proposal on Mental Illness and gun violence is rather vague. The article states Laughner had many run ins with the campus police and nothing was done. He also displayed alarming behavior. Was his run ins with campus police because he had committed a crime? If his behavior was so erratic then why wasn't he taken into protective custody for mental evaluation? Police all over the country encounter people who are suspected of having mental issues. If they appear incoherent or their behavior is obviously a danger to themselves or others or the individual actually makes statements that he may harm themselves or others they are taken into protective custody for evaluation. Gifford's isn't proposing anything new. She also doesn't state what alarming behavior Laughner was displaying. There is so much more to the mental illness issue than to make sure they don't get their hands on a firearm.

Jim

At least one person sees it. An ambigous definition of what is violence, mental illness, or temporary should scare anyone. What do you say to a wease like sheriff who says that is mentally ill and/or a danger to themselves without any real medical person involved. Even when they healthcare establishment (you know the ones asking about weapon ownership and destined to be be run by the White House) does get involved the law enforcement people can stretch this out forever.

2. ...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Have someone read the article to you, then explain it Judy.

You can't take guns from the good people, the bad guys have so many of them...

And you're not that one person EVA.

I would not wast my time Judy.

While I do believe law abiding people should be allowed guns if they choose and taking guns from good people won't stop law breakers from having guns. The criminals don't obey the law so what law will stop them ? I also hesitate to agree with anyone in these political forums because people are so passionate in their beliefs.

I do have to ask who watches the watchers ? The reason we have the country we have is because of our protections under the law. If we allow some vague "People with mental issues" can't have guns , who decides ? If I went to therapy am I excluded ? What if they extend that to who can get a job? Or travel because a "Person with mental issues" might be a danger and should be on the no fly list ?

It's a slippery slope and my fear is to paraphrase " Those who give up freedom for security will soon have neither. " I support background checks to ATTEMPT to keeps guns out of the hands of known violent offenders. I just think we should think long and hard before we enact laws that will set precedents that erode our very precious freedoms.