Last February, Trump signed a bill making it easier for people with mental illness to buy guns

[suncowiam]

Are you referring to you hypothetical scenario with no Constitution,
or under current law?

With no constitution.

 

[Vee]

It did not attract a ton of attention at the time (nothing does these days) but about a year ago on February 28, 2017, Congress passed and Donald Trump signed a law revoking an Obama-era regulatory initiative that made it harder for people with mental illness to buy a gun.

Yet despite this effort to roll back even a very modest effort to restrain the ability of seriously incapacitated people from obtaining deadly weapons, this morning Trump tweeted that there were “so many signs that the Florida shooter was mentally disturbed,” implying that someone should have done something to report him.

But it’s Trump’s party — and Trump himself — who have consistently prevented the federal government from doing anything about this kind of situation. The Obama-era gun regulation wouldn’t have had a massive impact on gun violence in the US since it’s estimated that it would only affect about 75,000 people. And disability rights groups had their own objections to the bill so some liberal groups, including the ACLU, joined with the National Rifle Association in urging Trump to reverse it.

Why doesn't that surprise me?

 

[Revoltingest]

With no constitution.

Dang.
I'll have to think about that one.
The reason is that without constitutional limits upon government,
the ability to fight governmental excesses & misdeeds is more
compelling. Think of no 1st, 5th, 6th, 13th & other Amendments.

 

[suncowiam]

Dang.
I'll have to think about that one.
The reason is that without constitutional limits upon government,
the ability to fight governmental excesses & misdeeds is more
compelling. Think of no 1st, 5th, 6th, 13th & other Amendments.

Hmm, how about just who can own a gun and the process to allow them to own?

 

[Prometheus85]

It did not attract a ton of attention at the time (nothing does these days) but about a year ago on February 28, 2017, Congress passed and Donald Trump signed a law revoking an Obama-era regulatory initiative that made it harder for people with mental illness to buy a gun.

Yet despite this effort to roll back even a very modest effort to restrain the ability of seriously incapacitated people from obtaining deadly weapons, this morning Trump tweeted that there were “so many signs that the Florida shooter was mentally disturbed,” implying that someone should have done something to report him.

But it’s Trump’s party — and Trump himself — who have consistently prevented the federal government from doing anything about this kind of situation. The Obama-era gun regulation wouldn’t have had a massive impact on gun violence in the US since it’s estimated that it would only affect about 75,000 people. And disability rights groups had their own objections to the bill so some liberal groups, including the ACLU, joined with the National Rifle Association in urging Trump to reverse it.

Which is why everything that comes outta trumps mouth is meaningless

 

[Revoltingest]

Hmm, how about just who can own a gun and the process to allow them to own?

You're proposing a radically different legal environment.
I can't give you a quick & easy answer about a comprehensive
gun & owner regulation regime.

 

[Altfish]

Since a large well funded proportion of the US are gun crazy there will never be a sensible gun ban.

So, why not treat guns like cars, you have to have a licence and take a test to own one. If it is a war type weapon you need an annual test. Each test includes a medical.

 

[Curious George]

If it wasn't for the constitution, in your opinion, who do you believe should own guns and what should be the process to allow them?

I can't believe you would think anyone can own a gun?

People who want to own guns and

People whose threat of harming others does not outweigh the harm of government's infringing on their right of self defense and leisure. This would have to be a high level of threat as the harm from a potential threat must outweigh the actual harm.

 

[pearl]

The concern is not to eliminate all guns but those that are of military grade. This type is the choice of weapon a coward uses. It renders people totally helpless. There is absolutely no reason for any civilian to own such a weapon except to kill as many people as possible.

 

[bobhikes]

The man is a felon now. He won't ever be allowed a firearm ever again.

States that allow felons to own firearms
Even violent felons may petition to have their firearms rights restored in states like Ohio, Minnesota and Virginia. Some states, including Georgia and Nebraska, award scores of pardons every year that specifically confer gun privileges.

 

[Revoltingest]

States that allow felons to own firearms
Even violent felons may petition to have their firearms rights restored in states like Ohio, Minnesota and Virginia. Some states, including Georgia and Nebraska, award scores of pardons every year that specifically confer gun privileges.

If they have to petition the state, we would expect good judgement to be applied.
Do you know how many are rejected or approved?
What's up with the approvals?

 

[bobhikes]

If they have to petition the state, we would expect good judgement to be applied.
Do you know how many are rejected or approved?
What's up with the approvals?

The quote was to somebody else specifically addressing, para phrasing, he is a felon now and would not ever be allowed to purchase a firearm. Whether the judgement is good or not or some are rejected the statement is wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

The quote was to somebody else specifically addressing, para phrasing, he is a felon now and would not ever be allowed to purchase a firearm. Whether the judgement is good or not or some are rejected the statement is wrong.

OK.
But your post was more interesting than just a response to another.
It's your fault for raising compelling questions!

 

[suncowiam]

People who want to own guns and

People whose threat of harming others does not outweigh the harm of government's infringing on their right of self defense and leisure. This would have to be a high level of threat as the harm from a potential threat must outweigh the actual harm.

Yeah, but did you understand my part about an antiquated solution?

What worked during the revolutionary war doesn't suggest it will work the same in the modern era of military advancements that only the government can own. I support the intent of the second amendment but it's solution is grossly outdated. It needs to be amended to reflect current times.

[Edited] Plus your assertion of what is the greater good is subjective if one had to be shoehorned into such a situation.

 

[Curious George]

Yeah, but did you understand my part about an antiquated solution?

What worked during the revolutionary war doesn't suggest it will work the same in the modern era of military advancements that only the government can own. I support the intent of the second amendment but it's solution is grossly outdated. It needs to be amended to reflect current times.

[Edited] Plus your assertion of what is the greater good is subjective if one had to be shoehorned into such a situation.

I am not so sure that it is an antiquated solution to the problem. Perhaps we disagree on what the problem is. I see the problem a group of people (the government) limiting individuals,' in that group, ability to defend themselves and engage in leisure of their choice. The solution was to limit the government's ability to do so without strict scrutiny. I see no problem with that solution. If there is not a compelling government interest for the law limiting one's right to protect themselves and the law is not narrowly tailored then the law should not be a law.

It is an elegant solution that very much fits even in modern times.

 

[suncowiam]

I am not so sure that it is an antiquated solution to the problem. Perhaps we disagree on what the problem is. I see the problem a group of people (the government) limiting individuals,' in that group, ability to defend themselves and engage in leisure of their choice. The solution was to limit the government's ability to do so without strict scrutiny. I see no problem with that solution. If there is not a compelling government interest for the law limiting one's right to protect themselves and the law is not narrowly tailored then the law should not be a law.

It is an elegant solution that very much fits even in modern times.

An elegant solution is to arm every citizen?

Why stop at gun ownership? Why shouldn't anyone be able to own a bazooka, a tank, attack helicopters, bombers, a nuclear bomb? Oh, now I'm getting into straw man territory but is that really extreme to suggest the worst armament a citizen can obtain?

How arbitrary and pointless is it, that the solution is simply based on guns?

The solution has already been implemented because as our government was forming, it grew into three distinct branches. It's called checks and balances so that no one branch can overtly become corrupt. We've seen it in action throughout the times. That is and has been the elegant solution.

 

[Revoltingest]

An elegant solution is to arm every citizen?

If anyone actually proposes that, please alert me so I can oppose it.

Why stop at gun ownership? Why shouldn't anyone be able to own a bazooka, a tank, attack helicopters, bombers, a nuclear bomb? Oh, now I'm getting into straw man territory but is that really extreme to suggest the worst armament a citizen can obtain?

One can own more capable weapons than you commonly see,
but there are additional layers of regulation & costs. People do
own tanks. I considered buying one once (a collector's item).
But these things are rarely involved in crimes, except when our
own government supplies them in foreign countries....but that's
a whole other kettle of fish.

 

[suncowiam]

If anyone actually proposes that, please alert me so I can oppose it.

One can own more capable weapons than you commonly see,
but there are additional layers of regulation & costs. People do
own tanks. I considered buying one once (a collector's item).
But these things are rarely involved in crimes, except when our
own government supplies them in foreign countries....but that's
a whole other kettle of fish.

You stopped at tanks and that was for collectible reasons. But the point was that we do regulate the control of these other weapons. It's just very arbitrary that the second amendment chooses a line of separation between guns and other weapons.

Yes, cost and availability does play a factor into this.
Guns are so effectively cheap at killing and are so easy to attain. That's why even an insane person logically chooses a gun to carry out his crazy plan.

 

[Curious George]

An elegant solution is to arm every citizen?

Why stop at gun ownership? Why shouldn't anyone be able to own a bazooka, a tank, attack helicopters, bombers, a nuclear bomb? Oh, now I'm getting into straw man territory but is that really extreme to suggest the worst armament a citizen can obtain?

How arbitrary and pointless is it, that the solution is simply based on guns?

The solution has already been implemented because as our government was forming, it grew into three distinct branches. It's called checks and balances so that no one branch can overtly become corrupt. We've seen it in action throughout the times. That is and has been the elegant solution.

Well I am having a hard time understanding what your question is here. Should we arm every citizen? No, I believe I gave the criteria and certainly not every citizen would fit that criteria.

Are you asking what the difference is between nuclear bombs and guns? Well a myriad of differences exist. How basic or detailed do you want me to go?

 

[Revoltingest]

You stopped at tanks and that was for collectible reasons. But the point was that we do regulate the control of these other weapons. It's just very arbitrary that the second amendment chooses a line of separation between guns and other weapons.

Owning something more than a tank is more involved, but doable in very special cases (a manufacturer).

Yes, cost and availability does play a factor into this.
Guns are so effectively cheap at killing and are so easy to attain. That's why even an insane person logically chooses a gun to carry out his crazy plan.

I agree that we should take measures to prevent such shootings.