What do you guys think of this???

[timcalhoun]

It came out today that Adam's mother was going to have him committed etc...

 

So, here is an idea that maybe we could push that I think could satisfy both sides of the debate.

 

What if we add a line to form 4473 that asks if there is anyone living at your place of residence that has been diagnosed with any mental illness condition etc..... If so, the FFL has you fill out another form. That form will basically have the buyer commit to and swear that all weapons will be stored in a combination safe, and that the combination is known only to the buyer or members of the household without the condition. 

 

The exact verbiage would need to be fleshed out but you get the idea

Edited December 19, 2012 by timcalhoun

[Motasyco]

I like this idea and believe it would be an appropriate common sense solution but I have my doubts that it will satisfy the ban thirsty anti crowd with little to no common sense.

[TNcitizen22]

Personally I don't like it.  Theres no 100% way to prevent mass shootings, be the shooter mentally handicapped or not.  I especially would not want the ATF in my house to 'verify' that my guns are stored properly.  They are my firearms, I will store them how I please.

 

I would take complete deregulation of the industry as opposed to adding more lines of regulation to it. 

 

My .02

[bear_1]

I think that would be a very good proposal, along with arming a principal, vice principal, and athletic director of any school send them to the Police acad. for rigourous training and mental evals

[timcalhoun]

I don't "like" it either, but we are going to have to do something constructive even if we know it will only satisfy them. 

[timcalhoun]

I think that would be a very good proposal, along with arming a principal, vice principal, and athletic director of any school send them to the Police acad. for rigourous training and mental evals

 

You don't even have to send them to the academy. Just give them the same firearms training that the academy gives before they put their officers out on the street. About 2 days worth is all it amounts to from what my friends on metro tell me.

[UncleJak]

I would not consent to a ATF check of my safe, house, or any other property without a proper warrant.

[timcalhoun]

I would not consent to a ATF check of my safe, house, or any other property without a proper warrant.

 

You would only be subject to that if you marked "yes" on the form and signed the consent. Beyond that, maybe that goes away and it is just a signed verification only without the consent to verify etc....

[timcalhoun]

We are going to have to be proactive here guys, or I feel really bad things will happen.....

[Guest bkelm18]

Nope. I'm not adding an option to suspend my 4th Amendment rights. Especially to the ATF.

[timcalhoun]

Okay, so then lets take the consent to search OUT!!! I will edit my post....

[Smith]

I don't "like" it either, but we are going to have to do something constructive even if we know it will only satisfy them. 

Why do we "HAVE" to do something. Nothing would have prevented CT except his mother proactively being responsible. She had many lapses in judgement.

 

Ride the wave let the emotion die and then respond with thought. You never make good decisions when you are emotional ... especially the government. 

[timcalhoun]

Why do we "HAVE" to do something. Nothing would have prevented CT except his mother proactively being responsible. She had many lapses in judgement.

 

Ride the wave let the emotion die and then respond with thought. You never make good decisions when you are emotional ... especially the government. 

Well, I have my doubts that the images of 20 1st graders being killed will die down anytime soon. Certainly not before this comes up in congress etc...

 

Beyond that, I have never sat by and let others determine my future (not that is what you are suggesting). This proposal is an effort to insist on what any sane person would do anyway. It cost us nothing and will satisfy many on the left. 

[UncleJak]

Ok, new idea: instead of banning anything, changing anything,  or trying to otherwise modify the 4473, I have come up with a new concept.

Let us teach our children and all those around us the value of human life.  Rule #1: All life is precious and can never be replaced. Rule #2: See rule 1

[Guest Lester Weevils]

The problem is one of judgement, how far do we go until we are just "fixing what ain't broke"? Dunno the answer, but that is the problem in evaluating changes to the way it already is. Whether the change makes it better, worse, or the change makes no difference whatsoever.

 

On one hand, if we add more protections against crazy people accessing firearms, nothing is ever foolproof. So regardless of improved psychological screening or extra nanny laws, it will fail and some nut will shoot up a gun-free zone in spite of the new laws. And that failure will make the anti-gun crowd want to double-down with even more draconian laws to fix what can't ever be fixed in a world governed by murphy's law.

 

Or on the other hand, maybe vague ineffective hand-waving on keeping the insane away from weapons would be seen as a success, if the law was entirely the idea of the anti-gun folk. For instance the assault weapons ban didn't do diddly. It was entirely ineffective at reducing violence or mass-shootings. However, because the AWB was the idea of the liberals and they crow-bar'd the law in over the loud objections of their conservative "arch-enemies", to this day all the liberals think that the Assault Weapons Ban was fabulously successful and a wonderful idea that brought unicorns and butterflies to the ghetto. So if an "anti-crazy" law was the idea of the brady bunch and it wasn't too onerous to ordinary people, maybe they would believe it fabulously successful even if it don't do jack-squat to improve anything?

Edited December 19, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[tnhawk]

Weapon owners can be liable for the use/misuse of their weapons under the present laws.  Another law will not solve the problem.

[daddyo]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="timcalhoun" data-cid="863428" data-time="1355932909"><p>
We are going to have to be proactive here guys, or I feel really bad things will happen.....</p></blockquote>

If "bad things" are going to happen, they'll happen regardless of what we agree or refuse to do. I didn't have anything to do with what happened in Connecticut, so I don't see why I have make any compromises.

[Smith]

"Doing Something" to satisfy illogical people adds fuel to their irrational. That's what has destroyed the Republican Party since Reagan and given rise to the Democrat ideological machine. It's like saying we'll agree with Al Qaeda in principle if they'll just stop hating us. Doesn't work. You can't logically negotiate with people whose premise is illogical; Whether that be Al Qaeda or the Liberals.

[timcalhoun]

"Doing Something" to satisfy illogical people adds fuel to their irrational. That's what has destroyed the Republican Party since Reagan and given rise to the Democrat ideological machine. It's like saying we'll agree with Al Qaeda in principle if they'll just stop hating us. Doesn't work. You can't logically negotiate with people whose premise is illogical; Whether that be Al Qaeda or the Liberals.

 

Okay, but they are not going anywhere, they will not see our logic, plus they have the power and we will likely watch the AWB pass again and worse. This one I feel will be far more extensive than the last.

 

The smart move IMO is to play ball until the tides turn. So, we can take the staunch approach and watch as they ban crap or we can try and outsmart them. I'm just saying we add a line that says we don't want mentally unstable people to have guns. I'm not sure how that is agreeing with their position since we all want access denied to crazy people? I understand that you mean that I'm agreeing that passing a new law will help (I'm not and I know that it won't).

 

Basically I want to take the expensive cell phone from the baby and give her a set of car keys so they will quite crying. We need to outsmart them or this ban will pass. I have no doubt about it.

 

 

I hope I'm wrong....... I hope I'm worried about nothing and your approach is the smart move.....

[Smith]

Okay, but they are not going anywhere, they will not see our logic, plus they have the power and we will likely watch the AWB pass again and worse. This one I feel will be far more extensive than the last.

 

The smart move IMO is to play ball until the tides turn. So, we can take the staunch approach and watch as they ban crap or we can try and outsmart them. I'm just saying we add a line that says we don't want mentally unstable people to have guns. I'm not sure how that is agreeing with their position since we all want access denied to crazy people? I understand that you mean that I'm agreeing that passing a new law will help (I'm not and I know that it won't).

 

Basically I want to take the expensive cell phone from the baby and give her a set of car keys so they will quite crying. We need to outsmart them or this ban will pass. I have no doubt about it.

 

 

I hope I'm wrong....... I hope I'm worried about nothing and your approach is the smart move.....

Tim that would work with rational people, but if you let the crazies take a little at a time they fly under the radar and are able to stay in the shadows. Look at who we have as a president. In any other time frame he would have been labeled (correctly so) a socialist commie and no one would have supported him ... even for congress. I've watched our side try to "negotiate", find middle ground, compromise, be "reasonable" and all we do is loose.

 

I am more convinced now than ever that the only way to fight the other side is to put up a rock wall and stand firm. That's how we beat the Russians, that is how they have been beating us, that is how the Vietcong beat us, and it is the only way to beat them. You can't give them anything. They have a weakness ...their arrogance. With their arrogance if you don't allow them legitimacy they will eventually throw a tantrum. Once they reveal their underside you can fight fire with fire. You can't give into their premise or it validates them and they keep going. Lies need constant validation. If you shut off the validation you will choke the argument.

 

BTW - we are on the same side. I just see a different approach. You're idea would work extremely well with people who actually care about the good of the country and not just their own party ideology.

[timcalhoun]

Tim that would work with rational people, but if you let the crazies take a little at a time they fly under the radar and are able to stay in the shadows. Look at who we have as a president. In any other time frame he would have been labeled (correctly so) a socialist commie and no one would have supported him ... even for congress. I've watched our side try to "negotiate", find middle ground, compromise, be "reasonable" and all we do is loose.

 

I am more convinced now than ever that the only way to fight the other side is to put up a rock wall and stand firm. That's how we beat the Russians, that is how they have been beating us, that is how the Vietcong beat us, and it is the only way to beat them. You can't give them anything. They have a weakness ...their arrogance. With their arrogance if you don't allow them legitimacy they will eventually throw a tantrum. Once they reveal their underside you can fight fire with fire. You can't give into their premise or it validates them and they keep going. Lies need constant validation. If you shut off the validation you will choke the argument.

 

BTW - we are on the same side. I just see a different approach. You're idea would work extremely well with people who actually care about the good of the country and not just their own party ideology.

 

I'm with you, and you are preaching to the choir.

 

They are going to pass something, make no mistake about it. It's just the what that I'm worried about............

[RobertNashville]

Unfortunately, no gun control measures are going to solve this problem. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try...obviously, mentally impaired people need help but even if we change how they are treated; we'll never catch them all before they might chose to go do something like was done at this elementary school. Filling out additional forms isn't going to do it.

 

There are two reasons why this is so...

 

One is the reason we all should know which is that a background check/forms can never really predict and certainly can't stop someone's acts in the future.

 

Second, and the most difficult to accept, is that the real problem is our society...our lack of morals...our lack of teaching morals...one parent households due to divorce or children born to parents that never even married/lived together all supported by our wonderful government...it's a lack of value on human life...a lack of rational/reasonable thought...it's the dumbing down of our population...it's a lack of faith in God or almost any real faith in religions concepts that can be found in most religions.

 

There are so many things wrong today that trying to address the problem of mass shootings is like trying to drain the ocean with a teaspoon.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The smart thing to do would be to move
the debate away from the damned gun
and set sights squarely on the dumb
concept of gun free zones, and to address the problem of this piecemeal
abridging of the 2nd amendment, which
will do nothing except reduce our rights,
which has failed every time we let these fools try.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Red Haired Girl]

Who decides what constitutes a mental illness and to what degree? Where will that stop? Nothing is private anymore, under Obamacare it will be less so. Will your pharmacy records come up when your social is put into the computer at the firearms dealer, flagging a medication you are taking that might cause a side effect, or have a warning on it  "Don't drive or operate heavy equipment while taking this medication" with the result being a denial? Will a list of medications prescribed to everyone at your address be accessed and a denial ensue because your 90 year old bed ridden aunt is taking Haldol?

I can hear it now "The denial has nothing to do with you - you are fine - but our records show you have a possibly mentally unstable person living in your residence. You can appeal"... Next please.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Red Haired Girl

[timcalhoun]

Who decides what constitutes a mental illness and to what degree? Where will that stop? Nothing is private anymore, under Obamacare it will be less so. Will your pharmacy records come up when your social is put into the computer at the firearms dealer, flagging a medication you are taking that might cause a side effect, or have a warning on it  "Don't drive or operate heavy equipment while taking this medication" with the result being a denial. Will a list of medications prescribed to everyone at your address be accessed and a denial ensue because your 90 year old bed ridden aunt is taking Haldol?

I can hear it now "The denial has nothing to do with you - you are fine - but our records show you have a possibly mentally unstable person living in your residence. You can appeal"... Next please.

 

Marking yes or no would have no bearing on you being approved or not.