Cities' handgun bans may fall, Supreme Court suggests

A MENTAL CONDITION, a medically recognized condition, something people get treated for EVERY DAY, that is reasonable cause.
It's reasonable cause enough not to send murderers to jail for life, it's reasonable cause for you not to be able to join the police force, and there are plenty other such things.
Tell me that a guy who doesn't get life in jail because he's seen as mentally unstable and unaware of his actions deserves the same right to own a weapon as you and me.

I don't believe the Constitution restraints the government from putting limits on gun owners and ownership, otherwise you would be able to buy grenades and rocket launchers in the store.
And even if the Constitution was with you on this, it would also contribute to the highest murder rate among the developed nations.

[quote="BubbleBliss"]A MENTAL CONDITION, a medically recognized condition, something people get treated for EVERY DAY, that is reasonable cause.
It's reasonable cause enough not to send murderers to jail for life, it's reasonable cause for you not to be able to join the police force, and there are plenty other such things.
Tell me that a guy who doesn't get life in jail because he's seen as mentally unstable and unaware of his actions deserves the same right to own a weapon as you and me.[/quote=]

Now you change your tune. First we were talking about someone we may know who happens to be a hot head (has a bad temper). Now you talk of people with a medically diagnosed mental condition (like being bi-polar). If you've been meaning all along about people with a professionally diagnosed medical condition, then i'm with you 100%.

BubbleBliss wrote:I don't believe the Constitution restraints the government from putting limits on gun owners and ownership, otherwise you would be able to buy grenades and rocket launchers in the store.
And even if the Constitution was with you on this, it would also contribute to the highest murder rate among the developed nations.

First off, you speak of military weapons. They're not available to the general public and you know that. Quit using grenades as an excuse. When people talk of 2nd Amendment rights, they talk of pistols, rifles or shotguns. Not AK-47's. It's a tired over-used line.

I said somebody with 'extreme anger issues'. Being a 'hot head' will diagnose you with 'anger issues', not with 'extreme anger issues' in my book.
Not to mention the fact that you stated it's unfair to assign somebody a psychological exam just because you think the guy might need it.
You also said that a decision of who is unstable or not should not be made by 1 person because it would "just decide who we think is unstable based on one man's opinion". How many people do you think it takes to declare you mentally unstable?

Well where exactly does the Constitution specify what kind of weapons can be owned and which ones can't? Back in the day, rifles were to the army what AK-47s, etc. are to today's armies, and people were still allowed to own a rifle. So if back then they could own an army weapon, why can't they now?
See, the Constitution is not specific, so your claim that it would be unconstitutional to deny somebody the right to bear arms because of extreme anger issues/a mental condition is extremely debatable.

BubbleBliss wrote:I said somebody with 'extreme anger issues'. Being a 'hot head' will diagnose you with 'anger issues', not with 'extreme anger issues' in my book.
Not to mention the fact that you stated it's unfair to assign somebody a psychological exam just because you think the guy might need it.
You also said that a decision of who is unstable or not should not be made by 1 person because it would "just decide who we think is unstable based on one man's opinion". How many people do you think it takes to declare you mentally unstable?

You have a comprehension problem here. Let's go simple!

I'm a hot head. I have a bad temper. I get mad alot. But i haven't been diagnosed by a professional that said i have a disorder. You with me? Ok. Now, i want to buy a pistol for personal protection. Do i have that right? Yep. Do you not want me to have that right? Yep.

Another scenario; I'm a hot head. I have a bad temper. I get mad alot. I have been diagnosed by a professional that said i have a disorder. I want to buy a pistol for personal protection. Do i have that right? No. Do i agree with you on not wanting me to have that right? Yep.

Of course, those are scenarios. Don't take that as my personal well-being or lack of.

BubbleBliss wrote:[size=9]Well where exactly does the Constitution specify what kind of weapons can be owned and which ones can't? Back in the day, rifles were to the army what AK-47s, etc. are to today's armies, and people were still allowed to own a rifle. So if back then they could own an army weapon, why can't they now?
See, the Constitution is not specific, so your claim that it would be unconstitutional to deny somebody the right to bear arms because of extreme anger issues/a mental condition is extremely debatable.

Why can't they now? Federal law, pal! National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Hughes Amendment of 1986 state what civilians can and can't own. You're confusing the constitution with federal laws. The laws have been passed and pass constitutional muster. Since 1968, it's been illegal for civilians to own or transfer any firearm capable of automatic fire without a permit from the federal government. There's a huge distinction between a semi-auto weapon and a fully-auto, military weapon. AR-15s look like military rifles, such as the M-16, but function like other semi-automatic civilian sporting firearms, firing only one round with each pull of the trigger. In the USA, it's illegal to own a fully automatic AK-47, unless you procure the stamp tax and meet the proper requirements for such a firearm.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:I said somebody with 'extreme anger issues'. Being a 'hot head' will diagnose you with 'anger issues', not with 'extreme anger issues' in my book.
Not to mention the fact that you stated it's unfair to assign somebody a psychological exam just because you think the guy might need it.
You also said that a decision of who is unstable or not should not be made by 1 person because it would "just decide who we think is unstable based on one man's opinion". How many people do you think it takes to declare you mentally unstable?

You have a comprehension problem here. Let's go simple!

I'm a hot head. I have a bad temper. I get mad alot. But i haven't been diagnosed by a professional that said i have a disorder. You with me? Ok. Now, i want to buy a pistol for personal protection. Do i have that right? Yep. Do you not want me to have that right? Yep.

Not true. Being a hot head does not classify you with 'extreme anger issues'. A bad temper cannot be diagnosed by a Psychologist whereas extreme anger issues can.

So, quit putting words in my mouth.

TexasBlue wrote:

Another scenario; I'm a hot head. I have a bad temper. I get mad alot. I have been diagnosed by a professional that said i have a disorder. I want to buy a pistol for personal protection. Do i have that right? No. Do i agree with you on not wanting me to have that right? Yep.

And I have the comprehension problem? My original point was that there is no psychological evaluation necessary to buy a gun, so even if you do have a mental disorder, it may not be diagnosed.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:[size=9]Well where exactly does the Constitution specify what kind of weapons can be owned and which ones can't? Back in the day, rifles were to the army what AK-47s, etc. are to today's armies, and people were still allowed to own a rifle. So if back then they could own an army weapon, why can't they now?
See, the Constitution is not specific, so your claim that it would be unconstitutional to deny somebody the right to bear arms because of extreme anger issues/a mental condition is extremely debatable.

Why can't they now? Federal law, pal! National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Hughes Amendment of 1986 state what civilians can and can't own. You're confusing the constitution with federal laws. The laws have been passed and pass constitutional muster. Since 1968, it's been illegal for civilians to own or transfer any firearm capable of automatic fire without a permit from the federal government. There's a huge distinction between a semi-auto weapon and a fully-auto, military weapon. AR-15s look like military rifles, such as the M-16, but function like other semi-automatic civilian sporting firearms, firing only one round with each pull of the trigger. In the USA, it's illegal to own a fully automatic AK-47, unless you procure the stamp tax and meet the proper requirements for such a firearm.

I'm not confusing anything, I'm only saying that the Constitution itself does not permit you which exact types of weapons you can own, whereas Fed. law does and I never claimed otherwise. As in many areas, the Constitution is open for interpretation in this area.

BubbleBliss wrote:Not true. Being a hot head does not classify you with 'extreme anger issues'. A bad temper cannot be diagnosed by a Psychologist whereas extreme anger issues can.

So, quit putting words in my mouth.

I didn't. I put things into a make-believe scenario.

BubbleBliss wrote:And I have the comprehension problem? My original point was that there is no psychological evaluation necessary to buy a gun, so even if you do have a mental disorder, it may not be diagnosed.

From author Charles Montaldo;

Who Is Ineligible to Buy Handguns

When a licensed federal handgun dealer runs a background check on a potential handgun buyer, the NICS system returns information on individuals who:

* Dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.

* Are unlawful users of or addicted to a controlled substance.

* Have been adjudicated as a mental defective or been committed to a mental institution.

* Are illegal or unlawful aliens.

* Have renounced their U.S. citizenship.

Additionally, the NICS checks criminal history records to identify convicted felons and those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes. The system also checks NCIC files for wanted persons, protection orders, and deported felons.

'Denied Persons File'

According to the FBI, states must provide to the NICS Index information on people declared mentally ill "including supporting documentation to prove an individual was adjudicated as a mental defective or involuntarily committed for treatment" to be included in the system's "Mental Defective File."

Some states and jurisdictions have privacy laws that prohibit the release or sharing of mental health information. In those cases, "states can provide information for inclusion in the Denied Persons File of NICS with no specifics on the mental health issue," which would go into the NICS index, the FBI says.

Only 22 States Participate

As of April 2007, only 22 states submit mental health information for the NICS database. Those states are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wyoming.

Virginia Leads in Reporting

According to the FBI, Virginia is the leading state in reporting mental defective entries for the NICS index.

Yet a 23-year-old Virginia Tech student with a history of aberrant behavior and mental health issues was able to walk into a gun dealer and easily purchase two automatic handguns and slaughter 32 of his fellow students and teachers.

If someone has made their mind up to commit such a heinous act, all the gun-control laws in the world will not stop them.

BubbleBliss wrote:I'm not confusing anything, I'm only saying that the Constitution itself does not permit you which exact types of weapons you can own, whereas Fed. law does and I never claimed otherwise. As in many areas, the Constitution is open for interpretation in this area.

That's right. But what's the point in debating that when there's laws in place for it? If there were no federal laws, then i'd say it was a relevant debate.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Not true. Being a hot head does not classify you with 'extreme anger issues'. A bad temper cannot be diagnosed by a Psychologist whereas extreme anger issues can.

So, quit putting words in my mouth.

I didn't. I put things into a make-believe scenario.

A different scenario than the one I established.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:And I have the comprehension problem? My original point was that there is no psychological evaluation necessary to buy a gun, so even if you do have a mental disorder, it may not be diagnosed.

From author Charles Montaldo;

Who Is Ineligible to Buy Handguns

When a licensed federal handgun dealer runs a background check on a potential handgun buyer, the NICS system returns information on individuals who:

* Dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.

* Are unlawful users of or addicted to a controlled substance.

* Have been adjudicated as a mental defective or been committed to a mental institution.

* Are illegal or unlawful aliens.

* Have renounced their U.S. citizenship.

Additionally, the NICS checks criminal history records to identify convicted felons and those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes. The system also checks NCIC files for wanted persons, protection orders, and deported felons.

No word about a mandatory psychological examination.

TexasBlue wrote:

'Denied Persons File'

According to the FBI, states must provide to the NICS Index information on people declared mentally ill "including supporting documentation to prove an individual was adjudicated as a mental defective or involuntarily committed for treatment" to be included in the system's "Mental Defective File."

Some states and jurisdictions have privacy laws that prohibit the release or sharing of mental health information. In those cases, "states can provide information for inclusion in the Denied Persons File of NICS with no specifics on the mental health issue," which would go into the NICS index, the FBI says.

No word about mandatory psychological evaluations.

TexasBlue wrote:

Only 22 States Participate

As of April 2007, only 22 states submit mental health information for the NICS database. Those states are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wyoming.

The same goes for this one.

TexasBlue wrote:

Virginia Leads in Reporting

According to the FBI, Virginia is the leading state in reporting mental defective entries for the NICS index.

Yet a 23-year-old Virginia Tech student with a history of aberrant behavior and mental health issues was able to walk into a gun dealer and easily purchase two automatic handguns and slaughter 32 of his fellow students and teachers.

If someone has made their mind up to commit such a heinous act, all the gun-control laws in the world will not stop them.

But it'll lower the chances of him receiving a gun. If this student HAD to be psychologically evaluated, he probably would have been declared mentally unstable and been unable to buy a gun, yet he probably had never been evaluated, so nobody knew of his mental illness.
This is proving the point I've been trying to make this whole time.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:I'm not confusing anything, I'm only saying that the Constitution itself does not permit you which exact types of weapons you can own, whereas Fed. law does and I never claimed otherwise. As in many areas, the Constitution is open for interpretation in this area.

That's right. But qwhat's the point in debating that when there's laws in pace for it? If there were no federal laws, then i'd say it was a relevant debate.

Yet you said that the Constitution is with you on the fact that you cannot force somebody to receive a mental examination before legally buying a gun. Does it say that in the Constitution, or is it a Fed. law?

BubbleBliss wrote:No word about mandatory psychological evaluations.

'Denied Persons File'

According to the FBI, states must provide to the NICS Index information on people declared mentally ill "including supporting documentation to prove an individual was adjudicated as a mental defective or involuntarily committed for treatment" to be included in the system's "Mental Defective File."

Some states and jurisdictions have privacy laws that prohibit the release or sharing of mental health information. In those cases, "states can provide information for inclusion in the Denied Persons File of NICS with no specifics on the mental health issue," which would go into the NICS index, the FBI says.

People that would kill other people (and themselves) could probably pass a psychological exam. Many people go psycho later on, not the moment they decide to buy a gun.

Who would give the exam? Gun store owners? A new (and inefficient) government bureaucracy? The NRA? Good luck on that becoming a law.

Here's a good read, btw....
http://www.wisconsingunowners.org/June%2013%202007_Why%20NRA%20is%20nuts%20to%20expand%20background%20checks.cfm

BubbleBliss wrote:But it'll lower the chances of him receiving a gun. If this student HAD to be psychologically evaluated, he probably would have been declared mentally unstable and been unable to buy a gun, yet he probably had never been evaluated, so nobody knew of his mental illness.
This is proving the point I've been trying to make this whole time.

You're fighting an entity that won't change at all. Unless the Dems rule with a 400 to 135 majority, it ain't changing. The gun lobby is pretty strong in this country. Most gun owners are sprinkled along cons/libs. It isn't a conservative issue at all. Again, may people with mental problems probably could pass an evaluation.

BubbleBliss wrote:Yet you said that the Constitution is with you on the fact that you cannot force somebody to receive a mental examination before legally buying a gun. Does it say that in the Constitution, or is it a Fed. law?

I never said that, did i? Show me the quote. You confuse federal and state laws in place for things not in the constitution. I've always been of the type that if it isn't in the constitution specifically, it's left to the states. Congress can make laws, too. But those laws are always subject to constitutional standings.... meaning that the law can be challenged in the USSC.

Just admit it... you hate guns. You hate that we in this nation can carry one for personal protection. It's a right in the 2nd Amendment.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:No word about mandatory psychological evaluations.

'Denied Persons File'

According to the FBI, states must provide to the NICS Index information on people declared mentally ill "including supporting documentation to prove an individual was adjudicated as a mental defective or involuntarily committed for treatment" to be included in the system's "Mental Defective File."

Some states and jurisdictions have privacy laws that prohibit the release or sharing of mental health information. In those cases, "states can provide information for inclusion in the Denied Persons File of NICS with no specifics on the mental health issue," which would go into the NICS index, the FBI says.

People that would kill other people (and themselves) could probably pass a psychological exam. Many people go psycho later on, not the moment they decide to buy a gun.

Who would give the exam? Gun store owners? A new (and inefficient) government bureaucracy? The NRA? Good luck on that becoming a law.

True, and you can't avoid that but the fact is that people don't just develope a mental condition, a lot of times it has to do with past experiences, etc. so most of the extreme mental cases can be ruled out. And even if not all of them, even a small amount would be a benefit to society.

Psychologists would obviously give the exam. A BASIC psychological exam doesn't take too long and wouldn't cost too much.

TexasBlue wrote:


Here's a good read, btw....
http://www.wisconsingunowners.org/June%2013%202007_Why%20NRA%20is%20nuts%20to%20expand%20background%20checks.cfm

First of all, just because you're a veteran and are active in church doesn't make you a crime free person.

Second of all, I hate when people talk about "denying responsible gun owners their right". It's denying them anything, it ensuring the public's right to safety. If the world were full of responsible gun owners, there would be no need for those laws but the fact is that a lot of people aren't responsible as countless DEADLY accidents show every year.

And the fact that anti-depressants from 25 years ago cause the gun owner not to sell you a gun is laughable, yet it's probably the closest thing to a psychological background these people can get. A recent examination would take care of that problem.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:But it'll lower the chances of him receiving a gun. If this student HAD to be psychologically evaluated, he probably would have been declared mentally unstable and been unable to buy a gun, yet he probably had never been evaluated, so nobody knew of his mental illness.
This is proving the point I've been trying to make this whole time.

You're fighting an entity that won't change at all. Unless the Dems rule with a 400 to 135 majority, it ain't changing. The gun lobby is pretty strong in this country. Most gun owners are sprinkled along cons/libs. It isn't a conservative issue at all. Again, may people with mental problems probably could pass an evaluation.

I'm not debating whether it'll pass or not, I'm debating whether it's right nor not.

Could pass the exam, but most likely wouldn't.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Yet you said that the Constitution is with you on the fact that you cannot force somebody to receive a mental examination before legally buying a gun. Does it say that in the Constitution, or is it a Fed. law?

I never said that, did i? Show me the quote. You confuse federal and state laws in place for things not in the constitution. I've always been of the type that if it isn't in the constitution specifically, it's left to the states. Congress can make laws, too. But those laws are always subject to constitutional standings.... meaning that the law can be challenged in the USSC.

Just admit it... you hate guns. You hate that we in this nation can carry one for personal protection. It's a right in the 2nd Amendment.

Yup, I hate guns, I hate America, I hate freedom, I hate capitalism, and I hate democracy.

Come off it with the Conservative bullshit.

The murder rate here doesn't lie, Tex. A gun carrying society is NOT a safe society.

Post by me:

BubbleBliss wrote:No, there are tests and diagnosis done by PROFESSIONALS to see when somebody is mentally unstable. Those are the same people who declare prisoners mentally unstable, decide whether you belong in prison or a mental health facility or whether you need anger management or other forms of counseling.

It's the same thing as giving somebody preventive medicine, it's all up to a single professional. Would you rather have a board of non-psychiatrists vote on whether you're mentally stable or not?

Yeah, well people like you are/have been in charge of this and as a result, the US has the highest murder rate among developed nations. And that's a fact.

And your response:

TexasBlue wrote:You can't do what you're doing just because you think it's plausible. You have to have reasonable cause. We have a constitution that sides with me on this.

BubbleBliss wrote:True, and you can't avoid that but the fact is that people don't just develope a mental condition, a lot of times it has to do with past experiences, etc. so most of the extreme mental cases can be ruled out. And even if not all of them, even a small amount would be a benefit to society.

Psychologists would obviously give the exam. A BASIC psychological exam doesn't take too long and wouldn't cost too much.

I think thru all this that you misunderstand me. I don't want kooks to have guns either. My whole debate on this is the fact that this won't be an easy thing to get done. There are laws already but probably not good enough for most on the left. The constitutionality of many things on this goes into play. I can guarantee you that if the gov't tried to create a law to have everyone have a psych exam, you'd see it in the USSC real quick.

BubbleBliss wrote:First of all, just because you're a veteran and are active in church doesn't make you a crime free person.

Never said that it did.

BubbleBliss wrote:Second of all, I hate when people talk about "denying responsible gun owners their right". It's denying them anything, it ensuring the public's right to safety. If the world were full of responsible gun owners, there would be no need for those laws but the fact is that a lot of people aren't responsible as countless DEADLY accidents show every year.

If you're a law abiding gun owner, then it's denying them a right. Criminals don't adhere to background checks or gun laws to start with.

BubbleBliss wrote:And the fact that anti-depressants from 25 years ago cause the gun owner not to sell you a gun is laughable, yet it's probably the closest thing to a psychological background these people can get. A recent examination would take care of that problem.

Lobby your congress-critter.

BubbleBliss wrote:Yup, I hate guns, I hate America, I hate freedom, I hate capitalism, and I hate democracy.

Come off it with the Conservative bullshit.

The murder rate here doesn't lie, Tex. A gun carrying society is NOT a safe society.

I never said you hated America, freedom, capitalsim or democracy. That's a knee-jerk reaction on your part. Btw, this country isn't a democracy. But i think you hate guns.

That last statement is bull. http://gunowners.org/fs0101.htm

BubbleBliss wrote:Post by me:

BubbleBliss wrote:No, there are tests and diagnosis done by PROFESSIONALS to see when somebody is mentally unstable. Those are the same people who declare prisoners mentally unstable, decide whether you belong in prison or a mental health facility or whether you need anger management or other forms of counseling.

It's the same thing as giving somebody preventive medicine, it's all up to a single professional. Would you rather have a board of non-psychiatrists vote on whether you're mentally stable or not?

Yeah, well people like you are/have been in charge of this and as a result, the US has the highest murder rate among developed nations. And that's a fact.

And your response:

TexasBlue wrote:You can't do what you're doing just because you think it's plausible. You have to have reasonable cause. We have a constitution that sides with me on this.

The 3rd Amendment, the 4th Amendment's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self-incrimination limit. The last is the big one, imo.

Hee hee! I made ya go search me. HAHAHA!!!!

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:True, and you can't avoid that but the fact is that people don't just develope a mental condition, a lot of times it has to do with past experiences, etc. so most of the extreme mental cases can be ruled out. And even if not all of them, even a small amount would be a benefit to society.

Psychologists would obviously give the exam. A BASIC psychological exam doesn't take too long and wouldn't cost too much.

I think thru all this that you misunderstand me. I don't want kooks to have guns either. My whole debate on this is the fact that this won't be an easy thing to get done. There are laws already but probably not good enough for most on the left. The constitutionality of many things on this goes into play. I can guarantee you that if the gov't tried to create a law to have everyone have a psych exam, you'd see it in the USSC real quick.

Not only are they not good enough for 'the left', they're also not good enough for society. The fact is that as soon as any mention on 'gun laws' comes up, Conservatives and others cry bloody murder and don't even want to hear what it's about.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:First of all, just because you're a veteran and are active in church doesn't make you a crime free person.

Never said that it did.

The article did.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Second of all, I hate when people talk about "denying responsible gun owners their right". It's denying them anything, it ensuring the public's right to safety. If the world were full of responsible gun owners, there would be no need for those laws but the fact is that a lot of people aren't responsible as countless DEADLY accidents show every year.

If you're a law abiding gun owner, then it's denying them a right. Criminals don't adhere to background checks or gun laws to start with.

Yet private gun ownership is the #1 driving force behind the US black arms market. I posted an article on SP about this.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:And the fact that anti-depressants from 25 years ago cause the gun owner not to sell you a gun is laughable, yet it's probably the closest thing to a psychological background these people can get. A recent examination would take care of that problem.

Lobby your congress-critter.

As if that'll make a difference.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Yup, I hate guns, I hate America, I hate freedom, I hate capitalism, and I hate democracy.

Come off it with the Conservative bullshit.

The murder rate here doesn't lie, Tex. A gun carrying society is NOT a safe society.

I never said you hated America, freedom, capitalsim or democracy. That's a knee-jerk reaction on your part. Btw, this country isn't a democracy. But i think you hate guns.

I don't hate guns, I hate the effect they have on society.

TexasBlue wrote:

That last statement is bull. http://gunowners.org/fs0101.htm

That's not what I meant. If private gun ownership wasn't so high, illegal gunownership wouldn't be as high either.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Post by me:

BubbleBliss wrote:No, there are tests and diagnosis done by PROFESSIONALS to see when somebody is mentally unstable. Those are the same people who declare prisoners mentally unstable, decide whether you belong in prison or a mental health facility or whether you need anger management or other forms of counseling.

It's the same thing as giving somebody preventive medicine, it's all up to a single professional. Would you rather have a board of non-psychiatrists vote on whether you're mentally stable or not?

Yeah, well people like you are/have been in charge of this and as a result, the US has the highest murder rate among developed nations. And that's a fact.

And your response:

TexasBlue wrote:You can't do what you're doing just because you think it's plausible. You have to have reasonable cause. We have a constitution that sides with me on this.

The 3rd Amendment, the 4th Amendment's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self-incrimination limit. The last is the big one, imo.

Hee hee! I made ya go search me. HAHAHA!!!!

So first you're telling me to give you the quote because you said you didn't say it, then I give you the quote and now you're justifying it? Tex, my man, you sure you don't need a psychological evaluation? :suspect:

I'll let the search slide this once, but if it happens again, I will ban you for 3 days and just debate with myself!

BubbleBliss wrote:Yet private gun ownership is the #1 driving force behind the US black arms market. I posted an article on SP about this.

Here's some info on black market guns for ya.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2160

BubbleBliss wrote:That's not what I meant. If private gun ownership wasn't so high, illegal gunownership wouldn't be as high either.

Again, read that article above.

BubbleBliss wrote:So first you're telling me to give you the quote because you said you didn't say it, then I give you the quote and now you're justifying it? Tex, my man, you sure you don't need a psychological evaluation? :suspect:

I'll let the search slide this once, but if it happens again, I will ban you for 3 days and just debate with myself!

Yeah, that's right. You said that i said something so i was making you back it up.

I'll leave a baseball bat for you to beat yourself over the head with in case you get out of line debating yourself.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/21/us/criminals-black-market-in-guns-detailed.html?pagewanted=1

The more guns are circulating around, the more likely they are to get in the wrong hands.Simple logic.

THE MYTH OF BLACK MARKET GUNS

by Dr. Paul Gallant and Dr. Joanne Eisen

Reprinted with permission from Guns Magazine, September 2000.
(C)opyrighted 2000 by Guns Magazine; All rights reserved.

On November 5, 1999, Reuters carried a story headlined "Colorado Residents Want Stricter Gun Laws". According to the item, "Though we may not be able to stop Honolulu or Seattle", said Denver Mayor Wellington Webb referring to that week's spate of workplace violence, "we need to have regulations...to lessen the proliferation of guns on the street".

Sound familiar? It ought to. "Proliferation of guns" and its constant companion, "easy availability", are the latest buzzwords of the anti-self-defense lobby. It's nearly impossible to pick up a paper or watch the news without hearing the demand for more gun laws that, we are promised, will reduce firearm-related violence.

The mental picture we're asked to paint is one of truckloads of Uzis rolling down the streets of America in broad daylight, and guns handed out like free samples at the local supermarket.

But "proliferation of guns" and "easy availability" are code words used to disguise the existence of the black market, and the failure of more than 20,000 gun control laws already on the books.

In all of today's rhetoric, one key fact is almost always ignored: this "easy availability" or "proliferation" of guns is true only when it pertains to the black market in firearms. And that black market is a direct result of previous laws which, we were also promised, would reduce the criminal use of guns.

Cracking the secret code used to hide the truth is simple. Just substitute "black market" every time one of these phrases is uttered. For example, writing on "The Epidemic in Youth Violence", anti-gun researcher Philip Cook observed that "gun possession was much more widespread among violence-prone youths in the early 1990s than in the early 1980s...Gun use may be driven in part by the availability of guns on the street..."

Or, take Mayor Webb's words and make the substitution: "We need to have regulations...to lessen black market guns on the street".

These statements point to the fatal flaw in schemes to regulate or ban firearms: restrict legal channels, and all that will change is the pattern of their availability.

The purpose of this deliberate deception is easy to see. By diverting the real blame away from juvenile offenders, guilty politicians, and politically-motivated researchers - and onto peaceable gun-owners, instead - it sets the stage to justify harsh new restrictions.

Deadly Neighborhoods

Spawned from a glitch in U.S. crime data, the so-called "epidemic" of juvenile violence derives from a single fact: between 1984 and 1993, the rate at which homicides were committed by adolescents aged 13 to 17 quadrupled. And that increase is accounted for, almost exactly, by the increase in homicides committed with guns.

But it is the crime confined to geographically narrow inner-city neighborhood areas - often just "a small number of city blocks", according to the U.S. Department of Justice - that has been driving the entire youth homicide rate.

The recent spate of U.S. school shootings played right into the hands of the firearm-prohibitionists, by allowing them to paint a counterfeit picture of juvenile "gun-violence" sweeping across all the streets of America.

Their antidote was predictable, and spelled out, in no uncertain terms, by Michael Tonry and Mark Moore in "Youth Violence", a 1998 U.S. Department of Justice compendium of articles on the subject:

"[We must]...treat the availability of weapons as a key contributing factor...If the availability of guns could...be suppressed, the extent and virulence of the epidemic [of juvenile violence] could be stemmed...this could, arguably, hold out the hope that we need not succeed in the expensive, arduous, chancy, long-run task of keeping youths on healthy developmental trajectories to prevent youth violence."

One can hear a deep sigh of relief from Tonry and Moore as they declare a new war on guns, in an attempt to wash their hands of the mess they helped create. But they're all guilty, as charged, and deserve no sympathy, for they know, full well, what the policies they've championed have wrought.

They know, too, that the "logic" connecting the problem, its cause, and the proposed solution are flawed. For what they don't bother telling us is that the "epidemic" of juvenile violence is limited to areas where decades of restrictive gun regulations have rendered lawful firearm ownership virtually impossible, with an outcome exactly opposite to what we were promised.

Witness the fact that "the St. Louis youth gang homicide rate is [now] 1,000 times higher than the [overall] U.S. homicide rate", according to U.S. Department of Justice statistics. And all of this was accomplished with guns from the black market.

Failing Better

In November 1999, Dr. Alan Lizotte presented the findings of an ongoing study on juvenile delinquency in Rochester, N.Y., to the American Society of Criminology. Lizotte noted that "obtaining a pistol permit in New York is no easy matter," and characterized the state's law as "tough".

Nevertheless, Lizotte's conclusion ran true to the familiar pattern of false promise followed by abject failure, the signature of every gun law:

"There is nearly universal non-compliance with New York's strict handgun licensing law...illegal handguns are easy to obtain".

Lizotte never once mentioned "black market". He didn't have to. His references to the "underground economy" told what most of us already know, and what people like Tonry and Moore do, also.

Underscoring that point, in New York City, where requirements for ownership of firearms of all types are far more stringent than throughout the rest of the state, and licensing is required for possession of both handguns and long guns, current estimates peg the number of "unlicensed" firearms at 2 million, or more, out of a population of 7 million.

Another "tough" gun law was enacted on November 30, 1998. This time it was a federal law. Under the National Instant-Check System, every firearm transaction in America involving a licensed dealer is now subject to government scrutiny and approval.

Just like with past laws, NICS was supposed to finally close the "loopholes" which allow criminals access to guns. It was a fraud, of course, because the stated goal is simply beyond reach.

The New York Connection

Barely one year after the advent of NICS, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and his cronies set about to perpetrate yet another fraud. In November 1999, Schumer announced his next "new" solution: federal legislation to eliminate private transfers of all firearms, including gifts between family members. Bill Clinton, in his final State of the Union address on January 27, 2000, went even further, calling for the licensing of all handgun owners.

Canada already tried that. The day after NICS went into effect, it implemented a "tough" gun law of its own, the Firearms Act. The reality of Canada's new system of national firearm registration was summed up by journalist Lorne Gunter in the October 31, 1999 edition of the Edmonton Journal:

"Thanks to Justice Minister Anne McLellan's hysterically rigid insistence that each and every gun sale, even these neighbour-to-neighbour sales, be approved by her department in advance, nearly all these sales are now so-called black market sales...In the nearly 11 months since the Liberals imposed their universal registry... black market gun sales have boomed."

More restrictions mean only one thing - more business on the black market, and even easier access for criminals. The equation is simple: if people want something badly enough, someone will supply it for a profit.

For many of America's firearm-prohibitionists, the real goal has never been a safer society. To them, success is achieved, not by reducing crime, but by enacting a law which is certain to fail. Of course, when it does, we'll need a new remedy, won't we?

And when it comes to firearms, their next new "remedy" is not hard to imagine.

That article never once states where black market guns come from.

It also says that "if there is a strong need for it, somebody would be willing to supply it for a profit" which is exactly how the black market gets fueled. Somebody buys a gun legally, passes a background check, etc. and then sells the gun for profit on the black market.
It's common sense.

This article is flawed and I don't put much trust in it since it has little original research whereas the NY Times article actually does.