Senate Bill would allow "mentally Incapacitated" vets to buy guns

America is a nation of morons. How else could someone like Bush become President?

"Remember that 9/11 happened with razor knives...."

If you really believe that, I can make you a hell of a deal on Brooklyn Bridge.

EmperorThan,

That is quite the myth. The mentally disturbed (who are diagnosed) cannot legally buy a gun at a gun show. Nor can the seller legally sell that person a gun.

"Anybody say nice shot?" -W. Bush

Oh really? Have you joined? Is that what you think recruiters tell people? What fairy tale do you live in?

Worthless statement award.

sums it up.

Nothing except the will of the people to change the law.

If your basing your right to own a gun on the Bill of Rights, I think that should apply only to the type of arms that were available at the time. Those weapons were far different from the ones available today. The founding fathers probably thought that hundreds of years in the future our country would adjust and add/remove laws as needed, they had no way to predict the fire power that we have now.

Didn't the people he killed have a right to not be murdered?

the right to own a gun is not based on the Constitution but rather, on the natural, inalienable law of self-defense in a free society (given to us by the creator, according to the founders) and enumerated in the Constitution. the rifles and pistols we have today aren't that much different. they still do basically the same thing. sure, the round capacity, accuracy, and rate of fire have changed, but so what. the right to defend yourself is a fundamental right for free individuals. why are gun control people trying to make gun owners slaves?

"The founding fathers probably thought that hundreds of years in the future our country would adjust and add/remove laws as needed, they had no way to predict the fire power that we have now."
perhaps you should read some of the writings of the founding fathers on guns if that's what you believe. also, the first ten amendments to the Constitution were enumerated by the founders' perceived importance. the 2nd is there to defend the 1st.

"Didn't the people he killed have a right to not be murdered?"
Absolutely! however, this was in a so-called gun free zone where they did not believe in the natural right to self-defense and were all therefore disarmed and helpless. again, gun control only hurts law-abiding citizens and leaves them as helpless as slaves. criminals will always have guns and don't seem to care about gun control laws. how many would have been wounded or murdered had the people there been allowed their natural right of self-defense?

When you see that your country has out of control gun death rates, and prison populations while the rest of the world doesn't have these problems, it becomes all to obvious that something is wrong.

So you tell me. How does this get fixed? Keep arming our uneducated moronic population with high tech automatic weapons?

You have the right to buy health care. Just like you have the right to buy a gun. When the government starts providing guns then your example will be correct.

Wrong and wrong. Many other countries allow their citizens to own guns. The U.S. (the FREE MARKET...not the gov't) gives its citizens the best healthcare on the planet. Come to the U.S. and try to break into my home.....you'll receive immediate healthcare for your newly-acquired gunshot wound to the face.

You have the right to buy healthcare just as I have the right to buy a gun. The government is not buying my guns. I buy them. You want healthcare????Buy it!!!!

I'm sorry but you are misinformed. The U.S. is the only country that has a bill of rights that legally specifies all citizens have the RIGHT to own guns, The ONLY country.

Show me a constitution or Bill of Rights from another country that does this. There are none.

The U.S. is also the only industrialized nation that does not consider health care a RIGHT that people should not have to pay for. This is fact. Every industrialized nation has implemented health care services in their country so that every citizen has access to health care, either for free or for a nominal fee, and not on a corporate profit basis.

I'm talking about preventive health care where you get tests and screenings to find cancer or other problems while they are treatable. In the U.S. you only get free health care in the emergency room if it is life threatening. By the time a cancer or disease gets to that point, you die. Unless of course you are rich as hell.

In the U.S. 45,000 people die every year for lack of health care. Indisputable fact.

Stop feeding us your lies. No one buys them except boob tubed Fox Reality-News fans.

We only have great health care for the rich who can afford it. No one else.

I'm sorry but you are misinformed. The U.S. is the only country that has a bill of rights that legally specifies all citizens have the RIGHT to own guns, The ONLY country.

Thats one of the things that makes the US the best country in the world.

Again Jon, if you think Canada or some country in Europe has better healthcare dont let any of us stand in your way. Get on a plane and go get your free government healthcare in the country of your choice.

I'll tell you want. I'm staying here and I'm making universal health care happen along with gun control, like it or not. Your gun totin' corporate for-profit health care days are numbered.

Unfortunately a free market doesn't exist in this country. It never has, and never will.

The "free market" is a propaganda item to get knuckleheads who never took an economics course to support corporate welfare.

That being said: there is a VERY big difference between healthcare and gun retailing when it comes to a "free market." Healthcare isn't the same kind of product as a gun. The same system doesn't work for both. That is because healthcare is a public service, and gun retailing is a competitive enterprise.

Public services operate best through NGO's NFP's and Governments.

Competitive enterprises operate best through an open, sensibly regulated market.

The foundation for successful capitalism is a strong base of socialism.

Healthcare should be a public service. But in America it is corporate welfare enterprise.

JonRaymond,

I think you need to educate yourself on the definition of a "right." A right does not mean it is provided by the government. A right means we are guaranteed the ability to purchase or own something.

Health care is every much a right as a gun.

Yes of course health care is a moral right. But I'm talking about rights that that are guarenteed by governments.

What you bring up is exactly my point. Health care should be a right. Gun ownership should not be a right. Why should every whacko with citizenship have the legal right to blow people away at their own discretion, and then face any legal charges after the fact. Only trained authorzed persons should have that ability.

On the other hand everyone deserves a right to health care. This equates to a right to life mentioned in our Declaration, as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness. But our government fell short of guarenteeing these rights explicitly in the constitution, unlike the right to bear arms, not mentioned in the Declaration.

If you see Capitalism: A Love story, you'll see an expose of lost footage made by FDR, who annouced his plan to give all U.S. citizens five new rights, including the right to a job, and to health care.

Other countries honor these rights. They pay for college. They pay for maternity leave and child care. They require paid vacations for everyone. They are healthier. happier and more productive as a result. We see it in every country that doies this. Yet in the U.S. we see high crime rates, poor health and our country decaying into a third world country.

Jon,

Were you just hoping you could throw stuff out there and hope nobody fact checks you on it? Go ahead and look at the assault, murder, rapes, and robbery rates in your socialist utopias. You'll find per capita, the major European countries are on par or ahead of the US.

Nobody has the right to blow anybody away. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure shooting someone not out of self-defense is illegal in pretty much every state. The hilarious part about your statement is you believe banning guns will stop criminals from obtaining them. How'd that work out with drugs?

The Declaration only guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It did not guarantee life, liberty, and government provided happiness. I find it strange you try to invoke the Founding Fathers when every single one of our opinions is contrary to their statements.

Michael Moore's movie is not a criticism of capitalism. It is a criticism of corporatism which is far different. Moore has no problem living in his mansion off the millions capitalism has got him. The other funny part about that hypocrite is he shot the movie in Canada so he didn't have to use union workers in the United States. How's that for being against capitalism?

JonRaymond,

There are a few historical figures who agree with you about gun restriction....

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead." - Adolf Hitler

"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." - Mao Tse Tung

"If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves." --Joseph Stalin.

“One man with a gun can control 100 without one. ” - Vladimir Lenin

Pol Pot and Idi Amin also agree.

You are in good company.

Exactly. The gun nuts keep saying it's not the guns that kill, it's people. Arm a nation that is 90% moron and you get the highest crime, gun deaths, and prison rate in the world - USA.

can you offer an example of a country where everyone has gun?

I can offer plenty examples of crap holes where the vast majority of the population is banned from owning weapons.

No I cant but I never said I could. Its just what my twisted mind thinks.

It's a good point for research, then. We ought to pick a state, or a city, or something, and require every individual in the state to own a gun... no training or anything, just prevalence of gun ownership.

We can see what the result is and THEN decide whether or not it works.

I find it ironic that someone who may argue that nationalized healthcare is an experiment (despite having functional models in other countries) and yet think everyone ought to be armed without any evidence that it actually results in a safer lifestyle.

do a search for Kennesaw, GA

CreditFigaro,

We already have that evidence. Looks at the most violent cities in the country and then look at their gun laws. I think you'll find they aren't all that welcoming towards the 2nd Amendment.

arcticspirit,

That is completely your choice on how you want to best defend your family. Nobody is making you buy a gun and I respect your choice.

However, when a drug addict tripping on PCP breaks into your home, I'll have a feeling you'll wish you had a gun sitting beside you.

or at least some more dope for him

Yeah, I have those drug addicts breaking in every other week.

(thats a bit toooo sane a response)

That's because i'm crazy, hahahaha

or atleast compared to the modern human consensus, I consider myself crazy

did you really just associate our veterans with murderers who just got out of jail?

the problem with this crap is that the right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable, natural right enumerated in our Constitution and this is some extra-judicial way to deny someone their 2nd amendment right. much like the so-called terrorist no-fly list. a right cannot be denied without a trial and conviction first. otherwise, our govt. can do whatever they please to the slaves, er i mean citizens.

Our constitutional rights can also be stripped from us as a result of our behavior. It's called jail.

It's not against the constitution to control how we let who have guns.

"Our constitutional rights can also be stripped from us as a result of our behavior. It's called jail."

like i said, "a right cannot be denied without a trial and conviction first."

"It's not against the constitution to control how we let who have guns."

every adult has the right to keep and bear arms until they are convicted of a crime which shows otherwise. or, if a court deems you to be mentally unstable enough. the courts are supposed to be the word on this not anyone or anything else. to be denied a natural right without some sort of court hearing is tyranny. the burden of proof is on the state and as always innocent until proven guilty (or mentally incapacitated in this case).

*edit - not sure where that link at the top came from. seems current is having some net gremlins lately.

CreditFigaro,

I respect your right to not own a gun so why do you not respect my right to own one? Why are anti-gunners so obsessed with taking away or severely restricting the rights of others?

Another Current member has managed to bring Christianity into a discussion that otherwise has nothing to do with Christianity.

Ahh, that wasn't my point, now was it?

My point was NOT: libertyforall shouldn't get to have a gun because guns are bad and we shouldn't have any.

My point WAS: The companies that you support through your vote, and pro-gun blathering have only ONE care in the world which is to sell more guns.

The gun lobby fights anything that is going to reduce the flow of guns throughout our country.

They protect the rights of third party vendors at gun shows who don't do background checks on the people buying their guns. They even protect vendors who sell guns to people they know are trafficking the guns to drug gangs (read: terrorists) in Mexico.

I think that most people should know how to use a gun and even own one if they want to.

I don't think children should have them. I don't think anyone with a diagnosed mental disorder of any kind should have them. I don't think people convicted of any violent crime at all should have them (if the laws were better, I would say anyone who has ever been in prison). I think guns in the hands of unstable, violent, or incompetent classes of people is detrimental to our society. The law abiding public should be armed to the teeth, and every effort should be made to keep the unstable, violent and incompetent from having them.

^^^ This statement goes against what I have seen the gun lobby trying to create. Gun companies DON'T WANT SENSIBLE GUN LAW because it reduces the size of their market.

Sensible gun law is important, and we aren't going to get sensible gun laws from the NRA, or the companies' lobbyists who support the same cause.

well,..give us a rough draft.......what does "Sensible Gun Law" look like,.....if you could have your way? Hypothetically? (National regulation thingy: whats it look like)?

Damn it, I can't get rid of that link on the last post. Please ignore.

Learn what the word Toxic means. And apply as directed.

* CreditFigaro,

There is no such thing as a common sense gun law. Gun laws simply work to restrict the rights of gun owners who responsibly use and own their weapons. It does nothing to deter criminals from owning weapons.

But that is not the goal for anti-gunners. The goal is a complete disarmament of the populace because nobody with an ounce of common sense would believe gun laws deter criminals.

I don't know if I agree with that. You are sort of taking a hard line position by stating that no sensible gun laws exist. By taking it to the extreme: should it be legal for people to privately own tanks? Railguns? Attack helicopters? What about artillery? How about a nuke?

Granted, these aren't all guns, per se, but there is certainly a point where we can consider weapons of war to be unsafe in the hands of unstable people.

Listen, just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't make them an extremist.

Personally, I think what I outlined above is quite sensible. What about it isn't?

CreditFigaro,

Well you are taking it to the extreme and talking about things other than guns. I'm merely talking about guns in this discussion.

However, anti-gunners want to go far beyond merely limiting the purchase of helicopters and tanks. Their utopia would be banning all handguns for private use. One need only look around the country to see how they have destroyed some cities with extreme gun regulations.

This country was founded on war and pillage, the taking of land from others, by misfits and criminals from the old world. So naturally we would give our citizens the right to bear arms unlike every other nation. Basically we are a criminal nation.

Hi JonRaymond, Surely it's more than that, I was brought up in Australia and British and convicts did the same, herded the indigenous people together, had them work for food, took their land and culture away.

What I hear from these friends is that Americans need to have guns in case the government does something 'against the people' and that this belief goes back to fundamental roots of independence. These aren't simple people, and they come from different parts of the country, they are highly educated and traveled. The argument that every generation has different issues to deal with in different ways or that a election sorts out a government that doesn't do the right thing by its people is quickly dismissed.

loupetho,

You are correct. Our Founding Fathers fled a tyrant and wanted to ensure American citizens would always have the right to defend themselves in case another tyrant should rise.

This is why smart Americans continue to study history and realize that the 2nd Amendment is as important as the 1st.

Most of my American friends are the most socially aware, intelligent, generous people I know ... but they can't imagine a world without car ownership, despite the death toll from accidents, murders and highly publicized killings. It's like part of DNA and logic is thrown out the window. I just don't understand ... I'd love to, but I just don't get it.

the right to self-defense is a fundamental right in a free society. this is still a free society isn't it? gun control only works with people who abide by the law. so basically all gun control does is disarm law-abiding citizens who are then easy pickings for criminals who care little of gun control.

So is the right to free speech, that doesn't mean you can shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre.

It has been proven time and time again that sensible regulation can be better for the society than taking a hard line with respect to rights.

This article is the perfect example of the 2nd amendment equivalent to inciting fear and hiding behind free speech.

allow me to be your first american friend who can't wait to move to a nation where gun ownership is illegal.

Thanks kcfoxie, I was sure that there are people like you out there ... and CreditFigaro I've had a quick look on wiki and can't worked out when was the last time the Bill of Rights was modified. In France the last time the constitution was given a makeover was in 1958. It's like upgrading software and using Web2.0.

loupetho,

Are you really using the socialist utopia country of France as your example? The country with awful crime rates, race riots every other week, and you've had about 10 Constitutions since the 1800's. France is probably one of the last countries I'd ever want to live in.

Hi libertyforall,

Firstly ... no one is calling France a utopia and the subject was overhauling a constitution. A constitution is the foundation of a people at a point in time, what works for them 200 years ago is not necessarily what works now.

If you read the American constitution without knowing where it came from you could think it was from as a socialist country because it's about freedom and looking after everyone. America should be proud of its democracy but is it really a country run my the people for the people or is it a country whose government is manipulated by multinationals and wealthy lobby groups? I could go on for hours about this but it's not the point of this response.

By the way, Paris had terrible riot in 2004, it was a shameful time for us all. Thank goodness they didn't have the arsenal of weapons that gangs in the US have. Gun's don't kill people, it's true, it's the idiot that pulls the trigger, so why allow these idiots have such easy access to guns ... and the answer is not more guns for everyone.

loupetho,

It actually makes me sad to see what a once great country like France has become. At one time France was full of liberty loving Revolutionaries who promoted enlightened freedom ideals throughout the world. Today they are a big government socialist country who resembles nothing what it once was.

I disagree with you about the American constitution. You are correct in that it is about freedom. It is not really about taking care of one another though. The Constitution is a guarantee of "individual" rights. Not rights of a collective. That doesn't mean it is a selfish and uncaring document, but the Founders realized individual rights are more important than the collective.

The US has also fallen far from what it once was. That is because of a massive growth of government that really started after WWI and has been happening ever since. I agree corporatism, not capitalism, is also a major problem in this country. But name one country in the world, regardless of political system, that isn't influenced by a wealthy elite.

The vast majority of guns owned by the gangs were obtained illegally. So they apparently don't care about laws one way or the other. These idiots don't have easy access to guns either. That is why they commit a felony in obtaining them.

I believe the answer is more legally owned guns for every American who can responsibly exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

The pen is mightier than the sword. If we really want to protect ourselves from tyrants we'd educate everyone. But education in the U.S. is a low priority. Other countries provide free college for their citizens. Not the failed capitalist state of corporate welfare, the USA. No. Here we charge everyone for the privilege to exist.

JonRaymond,

Is that why the United States is flooded every single year with foreign students coming here for an education?

Hi libertyforall

My neighbors in Switzerland all have guns in their homes. It's no big deal and they don't have near the senseless violence that goes on in the US. I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that gun ownership in the US is a symbol individuality and independence.

So in theory there should not a problem for every law-abiding citizen in the US (who holds onto the idea that individuality is more important than a collective) to own a gun. But I'm sure you would agree that in the wrong hands it not only affects the people being killed, his or her entourage and the person doing the killing but the rest of the community, and when it's school children massacring their peers it goes on to affect the US and the world - it is so sad to see these stories on news (I've given a more angry point of view on comment #28). The fact is that the symbol of what America once was, with lacks gun control in the civil population, is causing a lot of unnecessary death, hardship and trauma. "more legally owned guns for every American who can responsibly exercise their 2nd Amendment rights" is great but this theory and ideology clash with the real world.

As far as individuality and the collective is concerned, you have to define what is freedom. I would say that most people in the US are not free as in most countries. I also believe that real freedom is an individual thing, not something that can be given by a ideology or a government. In the end the world is what we make of it.

Yes, in France we have a big government and in theory it's a country that looks after the collective and I'm proud of that idea. I have all the freedom I could wish for here (I make documentaries and travel the world) plus I feel good that I can help others knowing that I would be looked after if I fall on hard times. That is not to say there are many problems and France is far too bureaucratic for my liking, most French people think the same but they put up with it because they associate that bureaucracy with the collective. Maybe a little like the US associating gun ownership with freedom.

It is inevitable that as societies grow that there is more government. From families to tribes to villages to town to cities to the world, each group has to find a way to co-operate for it to survive.

............mulling on that.

hmmmm,....I dont see getting it past the Plutocratic elite,.....
( now if they could be "Indianed" sowmehow,.........)

Hell ya, I like that way of thinking.

That was paradise? I guess it was paradise in hell.

@Jonraymond----in all fairness to Progresshive,....I do believe that was an ironic statement----(not that its without merit mind you)

Yes, I was being sarcastic. America as we know it has its roots in a militaristic, pigheaded group of refugees who couldn't stand Europe, then proceeded to impose European depravity upon indigenous people who had been here for 10,000+ years before Columbus stumbled across the Caribbean.

The "modern" argument about gun control carries on a grand tradition of debating how to kill, when to kill, and who to kill. It never touches upon whether to kill, because that would involve admitting that we stand (or drive our SUVs) upon the graves of innocents- from sea to shining sea.

Therefore, I would like to see the Caucasian offspring of our forefathers shoot it out in the town square, once and for all. May the most depraved bastards win and establish, once again, the shining city on a hill that is the land of the free and the home of the brave. No more ambiguity; no more pretending- just naked aggression to show the world what we really believe in- violence.

see,..............I sorta figured.

Why a .45 Revolver ? I can legaly carry a loaded riffle right now and I wouldn't need to hoster it . I'm ony reposnding because your kidding but if your going to kid you might want a better gun , I could shoot you , take your money doubling my cash and go on a killing spree that looks like a game show .

If you're carrying a loaded riffle, I could probably come out ahead in a quick-draw contest.