- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What's the OB's Thoughts on Stricter Background Check Laws?
Posted on 3/29/23 at 7:17 pm to civiltiger07
Posted on 3/29/23 at 7:17 pm to civiltiger07
quote:Mentally ill people's doctors should have to report them as people who shouldn't process guns. Not a government official, their own doctor. In the case of gun purchases, screw HIPAA rights.
When the current background check system fails it is due to the fact that the government failed in some way to report something to the proper agency.
1
Posted on 3/29/23 at 7:25 pm to iwyLSUiwy
I say ban fingers.
Clearly fingers are the real problem.
Clearly fingers are the real problem.
This post was edited on 3/29/23 at 7:25 pm
Posted on 3/29/23 at 7:26 pm to iwyLSUiwy
Sorry, baw.
You came to the wrong place.
Every gun free zone should be gun required zone.
Moreover, guns SHOULD be issued to everyone above 16 years old. A much better return on tax dollars.
You came to the wrong place.
Every gun free zone should be gun required zone.
Moreover, guns SHOULD be issued to everyone above 16 years old. A much better return on tax dollars.
Posted on 3/29/23 at 8:02 pm to iwyLSUiwy
quote:
I think a day or two delay would possibly stop someone from doing an impulse shooting.
Sure is a good thing that the Minutemen and militia didn't have to wait a day or two to access their firearms...
Posted on 3/29/23 at 8:15 pm to iwyLSUiwy
frick you, no.
Posted on 3/29/23 at 9:08 pm to iwyLSUiwy
quote:
Red Flag" laws. Temporary, and preemptive protective orders that authorize the removal of firearms from individuals determined to be at risk for committing gun violence against others or themselves.
So if my neighbors dog shits in my yard, and I yell across to him “hey frick you” or something similar, the cops can just show up and remove my guns?
Nah. frick that.
Posted on 3/30/23 at 5:47 am to iwyLSUiwy
I’m not mad at people that are asking these types of questions. I believe it’s human nature to want to “fix” the problem. Having an open and honest conversation in this case is good. However, more laws are not the answer in this case.
It is illegal to possess firearms in school zones.
It is illegal to kill people.
Cain used a stone to kill Abel.
David used a stone to kill Goliath.
God didn’t blame the rock and God didn’t praise the rock either. It is not about rocks or guns. It’s about us sinners; change our hearts not our laws.
It is illegal to possess firearms in school zones.
It is illegal to kill people.
Cain used a stone to kill Abel.
David used a stone to kill Goliath.
God didn’t blame the rock and God didn’t praise the rock either. It is not about rocks or guns. It’s about us sinners; change our hearts not our laws.
Posted on 3/30/23 at 6:16 am to chinese58
quote:
Mentally ill people's doctors should have to report them as people who shouldn't process guns.
Did you see how many doctors were all over the place about Covid? Heck there’s lots of doctors ready to perform surgery on kids to change their gender. I agree mental stability and mental health are part of the conversation but at its core this is more about how people are treating others than more rules.
Posted on 3/30/23 at 6:49 am to iwyLSUiwy
I am a gun owner and think anyone who is not a criminal or insane ought to own a gun if they choose as the constitution clearly states.
The problem is that the regulations that are in place today do not work for a myriad of reasons because it is damned difficult to keep guns out of the hands of people who ought not have one while maintaining the right for responsible people to have one. The restrictions in place today are unnacceptable to some and most gun owners do not care for them....expanding them any further is simply off the table. There is no way to do it in a meaningful way that would not be vehemently opposed.
The only path forward is to continue to do what we have done, which is at best nothing more than a nuisance for responsible gun owners and insane criminals alike, or simply allow any adult, regardless of their background or mental capacity to own a gun. Arm everyone...current background checks and similar measures do not work, expanding them in any meaningful way is straight out of the question. If more guns in the hands of more people is truly the only way to lower the chances of being victimized by gun violence, and this seems to be the current consensus, and the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is for a good guy with a gun to be present, again, in line with the current consensus, instead of making it harder to get a gun we should make it easier. And it should be legal for a person to take a gun ANYWHERE. Background checks do not work. Gun free zones do not work. All current attempts and past attempts to prevent insane criminals from obtaining a gun have only accomplished a nuisance for responsible gun owners.
There are all manner of ways to prevent insane criminals from obtaining a gun. If I buy a gun from a FFL holder he must do a background check, as meaningless as that process is. I can then sell that gun to anyone with the cash without a care in the world. Why holders of FFLs tolerate this is beyond me but they seem to, I have never heard it talked about much but it is a competitive disadvantage for the person who is licensed. We could establish a functional database of criminals and insane people which uses the same criteria from state to state and do a serious background check instead of the sham which is done today. None of this will ever be acceptable. The only answer is to remove any and all restrictions on gun ownership and carrying said gun. That is the only constitutionally acceptable option.
The problem is that the regulations that are in place today do not work for a myriad of reasons because it is damned difficult to keep guns out of the hands of people who ought not have one while maintaining the right for responsible people to have one. The restrictions in place today are unnacceptable to some and most gun owners do not care for them....expanding them any further is simply off the table. There is no way to do it in a meaningful way that would not be vehemently opposed.
The only path forward is to continue to do what we have done, which is at best nothing more than a nuisance for responsible gun owners and insane criminals alike, or simply allow any adult, regardless of their background or mental capacity to own a gun. Arm everyone...current background checks and similar measures do not work, expanding them in any meaningful way is straight out of the question. If more guns in the hands of more people is truly the only way to lower the chances of being victimized by gun violence, and this seems to be the current consensus, and the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is for a good guy with a gun to be present, again, in line with the current consensus, instead of making it harder to get a gun we should make it easier. And it should be legal for a person to take a gun ANYWHERE. Background checks do not work. Gun free zones do not work. All current attempts and past attempts to prevent insane criminals from obtaining a gun have only accomplished a nuisance for responsible gun owners.
There are all manner of ways to prevent insane criminals from obtaining a gun. If I buy a gun from a FFL holder he must do a background check, as meaningless as that process is. I can then sell that gun to anyone with the cash without a care in the world. Why holders of FFLs tolerate this is beyond me but they seem to, I have never heard it talked about much but it is a competitive disadvantage for the person who is licensed. We could establish a functional database of criminals and insane people which uses the same criteria from state to state and do a serious background check instead of the sham which is done today. None of this will ever be acceptable. The only answer is to remove any and all restrictions on gun ownership and carrying said gun. That is the only constitutionally acceptable option.
Posted on 3/30/23 at 7:02 am to civiltiger07
quote:
When the current background check system fails it is due to the fact that the government failed in some way to report something to the proper agency.
So no I don't support giving the government more power because they fail at their job already.
This happens but it is also possible that the data which is needed in the NICS system is not put in the system because of various state laws aimed at protecting privacy or, in the case of criminal activity, the charges are never made for a myriad of reasons and therefore never entered into the system. There is also the possibility that the individual who would prohibited is known to those around them to have issues but the person themselves has never sought help or committed a crime and there is no way for that person to be in the system unless someone informs the authorities...and even when that happens they often do nothing or investigate and then do nothing because there is nothing they can until the person commits a crime or loses their mind.
The only thing that is for certain is the NICS does not prevent insane criminals from legally obtaining a firearm...and if it did there is nothing preventing that insane person from buying a gun from an individual legally. All the NICS does is present a nuisance to firearm buyers and licensed sellers. Its a minor nuisance but that is all it is.
The only constitutionally acceptable answer is to simply let anyone who wants a gun buy one and carry it wherever they choose without any regard to their mental stability or criminal history. That is basically what we are doing today anyway. Laws against criminals possessing a gun exist and they are marginally effective in taking criminals off the street after they have committed a crime. That is about as much as can be constitionally acceptable. There is nothing we can do. We can punish criminals after the fact but preventing their actions beforehand is simply untenable from a constitutional POV.
Posted on 3/30/23 at 9:00 am to beulahland
quote:
Sorry, baw.
You came to the wrong place.
No baw, I came to the right place, the board that loves guns. I don't know if you read the thread but I've changed my thinking on pretty much everything. That was kind of the point, to have a discussion, which a few people were able to do. I haven't tried to convince a single person to change their mind and I am also 100% good with no changes.
Posted on 3/30/23 at 9:17 am to Stexas
quote:
I’m not mad at people that are asking these types of questions. I believe it’s human nature to want to “fix” the problem. Having an open and honest conversation in this case is good.
quote:I sure would love to see true crazies not have guns, but I don't say much about it because I do not have a solution that can work within our current rights that I do not want infringed. One of my worries is, people who now are ambivalent to second amendment rights become more anti the more this bullshite happens. But again, I don't have the solution, so I just shut up.
However, more laws are not the answer in this case.
Posted on 3/30/23 at 9:19 am to iwyLSUiwy
I would think anyone that has chopped their dick off or has a dick and dresses as a woman, or has a vagina and dresses as a man, would raise alarms at the mental illness part. But that is kinda meanie pants.
But, I wouldnt sell a gun to a person who has their pants below their waist either. I would not be in business very long.
But, I wouldnt sell a gun to a person who has their pants below their waist either. I would not be in business very long.
Posted on 3/30/23 at 9:21 am to tigerfoot
Posted on 3/30/23 at 9:39 am to iwyLSUiwy
Spend money on identifying and treating mental health issues. A gun is just a tool and there is nothing that can be done about the gun to improve things without infringing on the 2nd amendment. Therefore, you need to go upstream of the problem.
We are so terribly bad at identifying and treating people with issues. Most mass killers are known to the people around them as having issues but nothing is done for a number of reasons. Even at a much broader scale, we are the most over medicated country in the world for depression which does nothing for the underlying issue. We just suck at treating the source and would rather medicate it away.
We are so terribly bad at identifying and treating people with issues. Most mass killers are known to the people around them as having issues but nothing is done for a number of reasons. Even at a much broader scale, we are the most over medicated country in the world for depression which does nothing for the underlying issue. We just suck at treating the source and would rather medicate it away.
Posted on 3/30/23 at 9:46 am to TigerTatorTots
quote:When we have normalized all sorts of abnormal, deviant behavior there is just very little left to find wrong.
Spend money on identifying and treating mental health issues
You can make your face into a lizard then go buy a gun.
Posted on 3/30/23 at 11:07 am to keakar
quote:
90% of all gun violence is caused by democrats so its easier to just outlaw any democrat from being able to own a gun until they complete at least 20 years of mental incarceration where they must denounce ever voting for or supporting democrats again and demonstrate they have and will use the ability for rational thinking.
You should never use democrats and rational thinking, in the same sentence.
I agree with the 90% part.
Posted on 3/30/23 at 12:30 pm to iwyLSUiwy
quote:
1. I have never needed a gun immediately, so waiting a few days and giving fingerprints is fine with me. If there is one thing he mentioned that could potentially stop even just one shooting, this is the one imo.
That's anecdotal at best. Sticking everyone with your circumstances doesn't mean you can't be inhibiting others.
Name one waiting period that stopped a potential mass shooting or homicide. Why does the government need my fingerprints? Why should I have to be treated like I just committed a felony for buying a firearm? When you want something like that you are inherently calling all gunowners potential criminals.
Over 9 out of ten firearms used in crimes comes from illicit means so focusing on the few that do won't just reduce the problem, but enable the same gun control advocates to continually push for further erosion.
I'll tell you what we need to do.
1. It starts with ending single parent households. Parents need to raise their kids, not the government.
2. Quit manipulating kids into a lifestyle of mental illness.
3. Quit teaching kids to hate themselves and others.
4. Quit plea bargaining weapon offenses. NOLA released several people carrying a machine gun near parades.
That's just a couple small things that would go along alot further than fingerprinting and wait periods.
While good intentioned, all that from the mayor and even your suggestion tells me that my right is dependent on what a criminal will do. Instead of focusing on tens of millions like me, focus on them.
Posted on 3/30/23 at 12:52 pm to iwyLSUiwy
This post was edited on 4/23/23 at 3:08 am
Posted on 3/30/23 at 12:55 pm to Richard Grayson
Just ban people who vote democrat from ever owning firearms
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News