And so it begins...again (gun control)

It didn't take long for someone to plays politics wrapped in the bloody shirt of the victims of Arizona. Do not be fooled by the timing. These proposals have a long history but only required a new outrage to fuel their zeal to pass more gun laws that not surprisingly would not have stopped what happened. Gun show loopholes? Loughner bought his gun at a gun shop legally. Mental health test? Sounds good but the only way for that to happen is for the government to have access to our health records and they get to define what mental health is much like the Soviets did. Many were sent to Gulags because they were mentally "unbalanced" according to the authorities. I don't want to belabor the point when Gabby is still fighting for her life and the others have not been laid to rest but couldn't the gun control zealots have shown the same regard?

Even if there was a test or there was a rule put in the place saying that you had be checked out by a therapist and get the OK from them, it wouldn't stop a person from getting a gun. If someone wants something bad enough, they will find a way to get it.

Memories http://www.breitbart.tv/flashback-op...t-with-voters/

John, you have no worries. Between the heavy lobbying of the NRA and the activist Supreme Court, gun control is never going to happen.

I think the discussion will drift from the standard gun debate to a 'WTH are the alphabet soup Federal Agencies doing to protect people' debate.

It has been reported that this guy was rejected by the military, because he was mentally unstable. If thats true, people will ask when he got his gun permit - before or after this. And if after, how come the FBI background check didn't catch this.

The answer - not all government agencies and computers talk to each other. I think thats a good thing; but, it will be open for debate.

But the debate will eventually condense down to: Just exactly what does the FBI do for its 'background check'. I think we'll find that its essentially a quick check for felony convictions (not charges filed), as well as a way to track the number of gun purchases...to identify straw buyers...and maybe notify local law enforcement of 'gun nuts' who make alot of purchases.

So people will be all over the map on this; and, alot of people will get their appearance fees to state their case on the cable networks....but all I see happening is a costly effort to upgrade the FBI background check...and nothing else but a whole lot of talking...and maybe somebody from the FBI retires early.

The problem here is that privacy laws prohibit the release of the details of mental health records, so there is no way for the mental health to be checked on a back ground check. They already track gun purchases, any 3 purchases within a month or purchasing 3 of the same weapon in a short period of time will trigger an automatic investigation by the ATF, this began after Sept 11 I know this first hand LOL. You may be interested to know that the atf only keep purchases records for a year. DO we know where he got the weapon, we are assuming he bought it, but maybe he stole it from his uncle, daddy, buddy etc. You have to remember nothing changed when Hinkley shot Regan and nothing will change now. Until he states his reason all its all speculation. Hell maybe he had the hot for Jodi Foster too, or Lady Gag Gag or hell maybe even John Galt and Wellendowed. Point is until we know, we dont know.

Well said Dirty Dog

He legally bought the weapon in a gun shop back in November. Filled out all the paperwork and had no record. To do what some would have us do, the government would have to have access to our medical records especially the mental health records. We should remember that the government would like to own our healthcare (including the records). Janet Napolitano admitted last year that the government tends to keep those purchase records much longer than a year. (which is what the law stipulates)

I think it has been confirmed that he owned the gun legally, and bought it himself.

BTW, I am not advocating gun control...just trying to predict where this debate will go. And, I think there will be an outcry to 'strengthen FBI background checks'. I think the Virginia Tech shooter also legally possessed a gun, and had actually been diagnosed with a mental disorder. Very similar case.

There will be a push to give the FBI access to mental health records...we'll have to see where it goes.

So if the FBI gets access to the mental health records....................the n Galt to the Gulag?

..... the government would have to have access to our medical records especially the mental health records. ..... Originally Posted by john_galt

DUH,

John, just because someone has a mental health record does not mean that there is something wrong with them mentally, quite the opposite. Special opps military people used to go through psyc evaluations for both post pre and post missions, this may be individually or by group evaluations. By the way, most ex military who have had a secret or top secret clearance experience a hold on their applications for a gun purchase. I always take the full three days, no immediate clearance because of past military work. There is a procedure to submit an application for immediate clearance for future purchases. I don't purchase a gun often enough to make it worth the time.

JR

"Janet Napolitano admitted last year that the government tends to keep those purchase records much longer than a year. (which is what the law stipulates) "

well thank god she wasnt around when I was arrested because I would have been in prison a lot longer if they were to keep the records longer. Oh and by the way the ATF/FBI does not store the records, they only keep the serial number and the dealer it was purchased from. The ATF then has to go to the dealer and look at the dealers ledger and track the serial number to the name on the ledger and then they can get the written paperwork. I know this for a fact because I have seen the ATF searching the records at the bullethole trying to determine who purchased a pistol.

JR, you unintentionally made my point. If someone has the records of any kind (treatment, monitoring, evaluation, etc) then they will have to create a standard of what is a disqualification and what is not. Therein lies the rub. A bureaucrat with the best of intentions (right???) can decide that because some semi trained professional had a 15 conversation with you 10 years ago can make a nearly irrevocable decision that you should not own a firearm. I refer back to a Metzembaum bill that banned the sale of weapons to anyone who was ever convicted of ANY domestic violence rap. That was grandfathered by decades and took no note of the circumstances of the incident. You know that when the police respond to a domestic disturbance, many times someone will be arrested and most times the man will volunteer even though the women is just as guilty. This one size fits all legislation is scary stuff when all you have is a sledgehammer as a tool.

We have a license for concealed carry right? A license to drive, too. A license to sell firearms, even have to get permission from the Sherif, and go through a bunch of other hoops to own a machine gun. People who want those things find a way to get them...Why not a license for a handgun? Like the Patriot act, if you are legal you have nothing to fear. If you are in violation, or unqualified, you don't get your handgun. Gunners Ed in High School anyone?
Hard to conceal that Remington 870, 700 or AR clone, while you're walking into the grocery to get change for the cab driver, even if you cut off the barrel.

We are always going to have deranged killers among us. Then I hear about Fred Phelps protesting the funeral of 9 year old Christina Green, the little girl who was shot in Tucson.

If only there were a way to direct deranged killers to a more productive pursuit. Hey, I just had an idea . . .!