Guns dont kill people

>guns dont kill people
>people do
I agree. We should put heavier restrictions on who can buy guns
>REEEE INFRINGE REEEEE
Why is Sup Forums against mental health checks being a part of nics?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/12/army-lifts-ban-recruits-history-self-mutilation-other-mental-health-issues/853131001/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>A bill of rights, sometimes called a declaration of rights or a charter of rights, is a list of the most important rights to the citizens of a country. The purpose is to protect those rights against infringement from public officials and private citizens.
>The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.[1] Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 battle over ratification of the U.S. Constitution, and crafted to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically delegated to Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people. The concepts codified in these amendments are built upon those found in several earlier documents, including the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the English Bill of Rights 1689, along with earlier documents such as Magna Carta (1215). In practice, the amendments had little impact on judgments by the courts for the first 150 years after ratification.
>The Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms. The concept of such a right existed within English common law long before the enactment of the Bill of Rights.[97] First codified in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 (but there only applying to Protestants), this right was enshrined in fundamental laws of several American states during the Revolutionary era, including the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights and the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776. Long a controversial issue in American political, legal, and social discourse, the Second Amendment has been at the heart of several Supreme Court decisions.

They haven't committed a crime. Why should their rights be taken away?

"Shall not be infringed."

Consider that the right to vote was never constitutionally guaranteed to everybody, yet polling taxes or tests are deemed unconstitutional. Voting rights can undeniably do more harm to society than gun ownership.

i can think of 2 main reasons
1] most importantly, its a right to bear arms, not a privilege. we dont need mental health checks before we vote.
2] who decides what constitutes "mentally unfit" to own a gun? past depression? spoke to a therapist? witnessed a horrific and gruesome accident?

and what do you mean by "mental health check?"

>In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government

Because leftists will find ways to eventually define everyone with conservative views as mentally unfit

None of this answers the question

>Why is Sup Forums against mental health checks being a part of nics?
Because the Soviets did it and abused the shit out of it, just like the grabbers in the U.S. want to do. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

>In United States v. Miller (1939), the Court ruled that the amendment "[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[99]
>In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".[100]
>In McDonald v. Chicago (2010),[101] the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[102]

Shit argument you could literally say the same about any civil law go fuck yourself 9/11 was an outside handjob

>Voting rights can undeniably do more harm to society than gun ownership.

True dat

What part of "Due Process" confuses you?

If you do mental health checks for ability to have firearms, this will open up a whole big can of worms on putting regulations on people of what they can have or use.

THIS

LEFTISTS DON'T PLAY BY YOUR RULES.

Well said user
Niggers shouldn't be allowed to own guns
The 2nd applies to white men ONLY

what define's somebody's mental health being below the standard. something like believing there's more than 2 genders or that Russia stole the election by using secret fairy magic?

>Government tyranny

>A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is "a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved ... Is it possible ... that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?"[103] Noah Webster similarly argued:

>Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[104][105]

>George Mason also argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them ... by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.[104][106]

>Writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.[107]

>Patrick Henry argued in the Virginia ratification convention on June 5, 1788, for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:

>Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.[108]

Dude. Its discrimination of the mentally ill. Disgusting bigot.

And (((who))) would decide if you are apt to own guns,right?

>1] most importantly, its a right to bear arms, not a privilege. we dont need mental health checks before we vote.
But voting has regulations too
>2] who decides what constitutes "mentally unfit" to own a gun? past depression? spoke to a therapist? witnessed a horrific and gruesome accident?
I would say someone on antipsychotics or antidepressants. The military for instance wont accept you if youre on a low dose of prozac

What the fuck is that real?

It's like a play-by-play of everything that's been happening

>James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights"
>basic "human rights"
>basic "human rights"
>basic "human rights"
>basic "human rights"
>basic "human rights"
>basic "human rights"

State ran doctors.

What civil laws, you dumb gas-huffing faggot? Do they infringe upon someone "deemed mentally ill by the state" exercising their constitutional rights?

So dont go to a liberal doctor. Seems like an easy solve

Simple this law already exists, well at least if you are committed.

But on that matter

Can user show me a link that shows mental illness makes people more violent?

and criminalized to the point of having rights removed. (most mentally ill are only dangerous to themselves.)

>who decides what constitutes "mentally unfit" to own a gun?
>I would say someone on antipsychotics or antidepressants.
That wasn't the question. "WHO decides" was the question, not "upon which criteria will the decision be made?"

>mental health checks

Because they're notoriously inconsistent and very easy to fool?

See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

>But voting has regulations too
buying a gun has regulations too

>I would say someone on antipsychotics or antidepressants
>i would say
but you will not be in charge of that policy. hell, if Diane Feinstein [may Allah forgive me for uttering her name] was in charge of that, she would make it a law that any person interested in buying a gun was mentally unstable, and automatically barred

How would it be abused?

>District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It was also clearly stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. Due to Washington, D.C.'s special status as a federal district, the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, which was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) in which it was found that they are. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

now fuck off

>Why is Sup Forums against mental health checks being a part of nics?
Unintended consequences, for one. People who know that this will disqualify them from owning guns may not seek mental health care when they need it.
Also, mental health records in the U.S.are subject to strict privacy protections. We don't want some nobrain wagie pouring over our record to make this call.

No thanks. If you haven’t committed a crime and pass the existing background check, you’re mentally fit enough to buy a gun

Anything beyond that is just bullshit.

I know you're joking, but it actually is. Studies have shown that the mentally ill are less likely to be violent and are more likely to subject to violence by others than the general population.

Easy. Do like the Soviets did, and bully psychologists into deeming anybody who holds views in opposition to the state as "mentally unfit". They have already turned academia into a liberal hellhole, especially in the pseudosciences like psychology, so they probably wouldn't even have to bully many of them into compliance.

Have everyone you disagree declared mentally ill. Duh.

>Federalist No. 46 Author: James Madison
>This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

I thinks it's disgusting that the mentally ill aren't allowed guns. I mean they probably thought they were at the gun range but it was a school.
Shit guess they done goofed but it's not their fault. They are mentally ill after all oh well I guess no one is to blame

>Why is Sup Forums against mental health checks
Why?It should be obvious to you that 90% of the retards here wouldn't be able to pass a mental health check.

An armed society is a polite society.

>Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation
our founding fathers are literally saying the people are armed, a right they posses above the people of most other nations. Get fucked gungrabbing libshits

anything in europe thats not the tories is called far right already. and they even call the tories nazis on reddit. imo the term far-right is already used in this way.

even with a republican president and congress, washington is replete with leftists in positions high and low to influence any legislation and are not trustworthy.

obama was even going after our officers in training. hes installed marxist jewish and palestinian professors at all of the military academies and letting insane trans soldiers believe themselves to be sane and functioning. its disgusting and you cant give this evil an inch

It does answer the question. You're just choosing not to accept the answer. The Second Amendment exists to check the power of the government so that in the event of dictatorship arising or a foreign power taking over, the citizens will have at least preserved a chance to defend themselves and restore order, therefore the government does not get to micromanage who, what, when, and how that amendment gets to be used.

Governments always represent the people until the day it decides not to.

B-b-but they were SLAVE OWNERS, user! And they only knew about MUSKETS, user! The Puckle Gun didin't ever exist, user!

The same way retards arent allowed to vote

You hicks wouldn't know a civil law like gun control if it shot you in the head

Yeah! Let's give doctors and therapists control over our rights guaranteed by the constitution! That will make me so much more eager to divulge all my mental woes to a medical professional.

How people pick and choose to use it

Ya thats the point nigger

>guns don't kill people, people do

This is such a retarded line and it needs to end. It's obvious that people WITH guns kill people. This is like an argument between two people, where person A says
>genes don't determine traits, environment does
and person B says
>environment doesn't determine traits, genes do
When the obvious answer is that its an interaction between the two. In the case of guns, anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that people WITH guns kill people. If we make this realization, we can move on to asking more important questions. Which end of this interaction is easier to regulate? Will taking guns from potential killers just cause them to use other methods, or will it really reduce the number of homicides? And how much of a reduction in personal freedoms are we willing to tolerate in order to save X number of lives?

>Will taking guns from potential killers just cause them to use other methods, or will it really reduce the number of homicides?
Statistics say no.

To the second, anyway. Yes, to the first. And fuck you for framing the question that way, even if weare on the same side. You should know better.

interesting clipping if real but please refrain from samefagging in future

The same ones who do it now

Those rights are already regulated

>The military doesn't accept you if you've had a history of mental illness or on a low dose of prozac.

Yes they do.

usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/12/army-lifts-ban-recruits-history-self-mutilation-other-mental-health-issues/853131001/

Then they aren't rights or, if they ARE rights, they're not being upheld.

The fathers of our nation did not have to deal with mentally ill young persons shooting other young persons in schools.

Ban all people

I'm not in fact these are the changes I propose:

#1. SSRI's, stimulants like amphetamines and Ritalin, and other psychiatric medications can ONLY be prescribed by a licensed psychiatrist. (right now these mind altering drugs that trigger increased suicidal behavior in the first few months they're being taken are prescribed like candy by GP's, that's horribly irresponsible). If a GP suspects a mental illness like depression or anxiety or ADHD, they refer the patient to a psychiatrist.
#2. Licensed psychiatrists can recommend their patients be forbidden to legally buy guns for up to 1 year while they're actively in their care, if they feel their patient is a danger to themselves or anyone else. At least a 6 month ban on buying firearms is mandatory for any patient recieving psychiatric drugs, if they are going to be on those medications for longer, the psychiatrist can extend it to a maximum of 1 year, any longer and it automatically expires or they need to be in contact with a judge and formally declare them unfit to own a firearm for a longer period of time or even permanently.
#3. Straw Buyers for those who fail background checks are liable for any crimes committed by those they staw buy for, including first degree murder charges.

So to TL;DR, added restrictions to who can prescribe psychiatric medications. Licensed psychiatrists can temporarily bar their patients from buying firearms, permanently with a judge's approval and court hearing, and legal recourse for straw buyers. The straw buyer provision may be difficult to enforce if there's a cash transaction made in private, but that's the only problem I can see with what I"m proposing.

The fathers of our nation knew that it didn't matter. "Shall not be infringed" is pretty fucking clear and concise.

Well common sense will tell you suicidal people have less to lose. But ill go ahead and quote a medical journal
>Aggressive behavior and impulsivity are often found in paranoid schizophrenia and can occur during both acute and chronic phases of the illness. Impulsivity is defined as action without planning or reflection, and it seems to be related to a failure of behavioral filtering outside of consciousness.

>Patients with schizophrenia may show dysfunctional impulsivity and impulsive aggression. Although the neurobiological aspects of aggression in patients with schizophrenia are still not well understood, impulsivity and aggression may correlate with frontal and temporal brain abnormalities.2 Psychotic symptoms, such as delusions and hallucinations, with subsequent suspiciousness and hostility, may result in aggressive behavior. Or, aggression may be impulsive and caused by an environmental frustrating event. Patients may be more aggressive and violent during acute episodes.3

The same people who already diagnose these people. Doctors already exist

But why should mentally ill people have guns?

And by the way, the Constitution and bill of rights weren't written so ((lawyers))) and (((judges))) could interpret the wording and rape the definition. The second amendement is barely a paragraph and it's clear in its objective. The right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Shall not be infringed. As in, you can't infringe on those rights for ANY reason. Whether you (((think))) they're mentally ill or not. It was fucking clear. We've had over a century of faggot Jews trying to molest the constitution. Fuck you.

>buying a gun has regulations too
Exactly

As someone that's worked in an ER for 4 years I can tell you that already no one wants to be completely open with their doctor. Giving them control over putting someone on a 72 hour mental hold was huge mistake. Mention to an ER doc that you've been having thoughts of self can can put you in a poorly maintained mental health unit no better than prison for up to 3 fucking days. Good bye job, good bye finals, just fuck my shit up fampai. ER docs have their hands tied to do anything else as well. If someone comes with for a mental health eval and they release them, the hospital and the doctor are potentially liable for anything the do to themselves or others.

Also fyi if you're an asshole when you drink don't check into the ER until you're sober. We had one doc that would send asshole entitled college kids to detox if they pissed him off. He was my hero.

How should I have framed it?

So they can defend themselves from those who would take advantage of them, as they already do.

Personally I find it funny as hell. These libtard kids think they are going to get gun control legislation and what they end up with is losing “juvenile protection” and trashing HIPPA. Good work kids!

legit. As it is, the full-auto ban is unconstitutional imo.

Please cite that study

Fuck you. Just because you're prescribed Xanax after a traumatic experience so you can sleep doesn't strip you of your God given right to defend yourself. Kike detected.

1.) SHALL
2.) NOT
3.) BE
4.) INFRINGED
Taking away a person's rights when they've done nothing wrong is pre-crime.
That's fucking Orwellian.
Kill yourself.
Literally.

As two seperate questions.
>Will taking guns away from potential killers just cause them to use other methods?
Yes, as China and the U.K., among others, have already shown us.
>Will it really reduce the number of homicides?
No, as see above.

So go to a conservative dr. This is a bipartisan country not a socialist regime

Kek

I don't want the government doing mental checks on me because I am perfectly healthy, stable and I've never committed a crime. The do background checks when I buy guns. I've never been in jail. That's all they deserve to know about me.

That wasnt a yes or no question

I refuse to trust a doctor with my inalienable rights, when he and his money are on the line as they would be when political pressure comes into play.

Soviet Russia, Soviet Russia, Soviet Russia. Do some fucking research. This is what they do to disarm people. They have done it before, and it ALWAYS ends badly.

Temporarily it should. Most of the people committing mass shootings are seeing shrinks and on psychiatric drugs and frankly they're 2x more likely to commit suicide than even murder, they're a danger to themselves and they're not in their right mind. IF you recover and stop seeing shrinks and get off the drugs.. those background check flags automatically expire .

Because our society has pushed mental illness so far that being normal is a mental illness.

So violent felons should have automatic weapons nd grenades? Thats absurd

entering a psychiatrist's care is VOLUNTARY unless you commit a crime and it's court ordered that you undergo a psychiatric evaluation.

Yes the founding fathers also failed to report Nikolas Cruz to the police and FBI, who should have taken action to prevent the shooting. People who are alive didn't fail to do that though, but the cops fucked up anyway, so why are you such a government loving statist little bitch?

Any restriction on the RIGHT to bear arms is a clear violation of the Constitution.

>I oppose trampling on the rights of the populace
>You want felons to have RPGs!
Like clockwork. You motherfuckers never change.

Yes, I support the right of convicted felons to bear arms. If you don't think they have that right, how in the fuck do you justify letting them out of prison in the first place?

Even that is a violation of your right to bear arms. There's nothing in the constitution that states the right to bear arms unless you've committed a felony. It pretty clearly states the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Funny thing is the guns weren't even his.

This is new information to me. Thank you user. I admit i was wrong. Allow me to rephrase. The military might not even let you join of you cant clear waivers.

It's less funny when you see every law that's tried to pass after these incidents would have no impact on the actual crime committed.

Fuck you. You're probably the one seeing a shrink. Mass shootings on a scale of homicides and accidental deaths are at best a statistical anomaly, and I refuse to let you molest my rights. If some nigger tells my wife he's gonna rape her when she gets home and I decide to knock him out instead of file a police report that will never amount to anything, and I'm arrested for felony battery, do I deserve to have my rights stripped from me? I don't trust the Government. I don't trust you. That's why we have a constitution.

a crime? like not allowing your 7 year old to get gender reassignment surgery because their 2nd grade teacher encouraged them to, or possessing an assault box cutter? you should kys. afterwards there will be a mandatory psych evaluation.

It's starts there and grows you absolute retard.

We don't rehabilitate in our justice system, they only serve the time as punishment and then get out. They've already proven that they're irresponsible with their rights and used them to harm others. So yeah, they don't get those rights back unless they can convince a judge to reinstate them.

Well most people dont want felons with ak47s so youre already downstream here bub

I don't trust mentally ill people with guns. There's only one other solution then. mandatory euthanasia for crazies like you.

There are no waivers fuckwad. The Military will let anyone join. You omit information and they look past it. As long as you're able bodied, and can pass a physical evaluation you're in. I know from personal experience that a friend of mine had a Juvenile record and required a "waiver" but they pushed him through anyway and he turned out to be a decorated soldier. Military recruiters are patriots and don't give a shit about (((laws))) that prohibit US Citizens from enlisting.