Why would you be against preventing mentally ill people from getting firearms? I am pretty pro second amendment and I really believe that good citizens should have the right to own and bear firearms (including semi-automatic rifles) but I can't understand why some people would be against background checks and more precisely regarding mentally ill people.
Why would you be against preventing mentally ill people from getting firearms...
Ethnostates are the answer
>no sane person would want to have firearms.
Define mental illness.
Also you can't be pro second amendent.
Youre European you can't own weapons.
>want a gun ban
>have a reputation for stretching the law into whatever you like because living document, yo
>law says mentally ill people can't have guns
>hmm what do
>stretch the definition of mentally ill to cover nearly everyone
>gun ban achieved
Fucking retarded amerimutt. Switzerland is just behind you in terms of armed citizens statistics. Czech Republic even has CCW for citizens. And in France you can legally own AR15, glocks and any semi automatic firearm if you're registered in a shooting club.
>you're registered in a shooting club.
If you need to ask the government permission to own a gun you don't have gun rights.
Also I'm not an American I was originally from Canada, a place we're gun owners can lose all their guns because the police think you might be mental.
And in order to own gun in Switzerland you need to serve some army time so you're wrong with citizens owning guns.
The angle on this slippery slope is pretty insane
Individuals cannot own more than 12 centerfire firearms, and cannot own more than 10 magazines or 1000 rounds per firearm
You don't have gun rights shut the fuck up euro nigger.
In America we don't have ammo and gun limits.
Mentally ill people can't get firearms now, Op.
But they have to be declared insane by due process. Only tyrannical regimes like the Soviet Union abused psychology as a false pretext to imprison and murder people.
As for Snopes... don't. That's just wrong.
Category D requires the owner to be older than 18 (with the exception of paintball and air guns, which can be acquired by minors).
Category C requires the owner to be older than 18, have a hunting licence or be affiliated with a shooting range, and have a medical certificate.
Category B requires the owner to be older than 18, be affiliated with a shooting range, have attended at least 3 shooting sessions with an instructor, and have a medical certificate. The shooter then receives a 5 year authorization to purchase and own of Category B firearms (and therefore Category C firearms since they are affiliated with a shooting range). A shooter between the ages of 16 and 18 can own Category B firearms if they participate in international shooting competitions.
No civilian may carry any of the Category A weapons.[clarification needed] A special form allows a civilian to apply for a 1 year carry license, which allows them to carry a handgun and a maximum of 50 rounds, if they are "exposed to exceptional risks to their life". In practice, such authorizations are rare.
Since the November 2015 Paris attacks, police officers are allowed to carry their firearms while off duty
Fuck you can't own shit. Asking dad to drive his car doesn't mean you own a car.
They're already prevented from owning firearms you fucking brainlet.
You can't cede any ground to the gun grabbers. Again: NO GROUND CAN BE CEDED, no matter how seemingly good the argument seems.
>And in order to own gun in Switzerland you need to serve some army time so you're wrong with citizens owning guns.
You are wrong. What you're talking about is the military service where you can take your army rifle back home once you've done it. Even though military service is mandatory in Switzerland, you can still buy any semi-automatic firearms before doing it. There are just background checks. Almost every Swiss has firearms, the laws are pretty much the same as in the US there.
This. I've been in a psych ward and I can't pass the background check.
The major problem is that the government will simply change the definition of mentally ill. Wanting a gun will be seen as a sign of mental illness. If you want a gun, you cannot be mentally ill. The desire to own a gun is a sign of mental illness. Therefore, if you apply for a gun, you fail the test, and will not be permitted to buy a gun.
This. Compromise just leads to more compromise.
To be fair, they do have the same rights to gun ownership as any human- they're just too cucked to assert that fact to their government.
>Dr. Shekelstein determines my ownership to a firearm.
What part of 'rights' don't you understand?
Nobody should be prevented from owning a firearm. Every little thing they implement to limit who is allowed to own a firearm slowly erodes the 2nd amendment. The right to defend yourself is a right given by God and should never be taken away. Criminals with long records should just be made to stay in prison, mental hospitals for the criminally insane. Every person that has their right to a firearm stripped has been made vulnerable to the criminal element and is forced to hope the police are quick enough to respond before you get murdered. With average response times of 12-15 minutes, you are completely at the mercy of the criminals.
You just won the internet for the day..
Thanks to the people answering without being too autistic. I'm just trying to understand the debate. So what is the snopes article in first post talking about exactly? You guys are saying that there are already background checks for mentally ill people but some stupid medias are saying the opposite. What are they talking about?
The MSM twists words to suit their narrative and uses appeals to emotion, knowing full well that normies have no critical thinking skills. Most normies work such soul crushing, braindead jobs, that all they care about when they get home is the latest Netflix series and sportsball, both accompanied by large amounts of alcohol. They will never do their own research and they don't care to.
if they said it would be illegal for people to own firearms if they're mentally ill, they'd build massive insane asylums and build up a massive economy around mental health. they'd have doctors declare anyone mentally ill and make them stay in an asylum for a period of time just to take away rights. if you don't believe me, ask how easy it is for an ex-con of any infraction to get a gun.
>requires states to report accurately about background checks and financially penalizes them when they don't
Seems ok to me
If you've been involuntarily committed or adjudicated mentally deficient you won't pass a National Instant Criminal Background Check. The laws and processes are in place, but fuckers will still fall through the cracks.
People said the same thing about allowing gay marriage leading to other forms of degeneracy and look where we are now.
Just because you say it's a slippery slope doesn't make it any less correct.
Medical records are supposed to be off limits
I believe background checks fall under infringement. They make certain classes of people either become vulnerable to criminals, dependent upon police response times, or forces them to become criminals themselves should they choose to arm themselves for defense. All it is, is a way to bypass the 2A under the guise of public safety. Any nation that will exchange rights for safety deserve and will have neither.
Mentally ill people deserve every right I have.
Ok and what did Trump change about that? Articles are saying that he changed things regarding mentally ill people.
Are you in favor of convicted criminals being able to buy weapons legally?
>mom takes you to Dr shekelstein like a good goy
>tell him you feel sad sometimes
>flash forward 10 years
>live in cheap apartment surrounded by diversity
>decide you need personal defense
>background check says Dr shekelstein diagnosed you with severe depression
>die lying on your floor as your wife is getting culturally enriched
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Absolutely. Anyone determined to get a gun will do so regardless of the laws. Law abiding citizens shoudn't have their right to self defense stripped from them permanently just because they fucked up in the past. We already have a solution for repeat offenders, longer sentences and in some states, 3 strikes laws that put violent felons with 3 or more offenses into prison for life.
Kek. I think you guys are slightly exaggerating. I do believe there could be some ways to prevent real retards from getting firearms without arming 99.99% of the gun owners but I do understand why you're all against giving up any tiny bit of your rights.
Iirc, Obama wanted to add people who let someone else handle their social security(or VA, can't exactly remember) benefits for them added to the NICS list. Someone who let's a family member handle benefits isn't necessarily crazy. Actually the old/weak/crippled are exactly the people who need guns for self defense. Even the ACLU was against this, and the ACLU is very rarely pro-gun. Once Trump assumed office he killed the rule.
We just aren't at a point where we can legislate based on psychology. Violent cunts are the exception, but they have to prove that they're a violent cunt first.
It's worse than that. They are already using this shooting as an excuse to set the precedent for preemptive arrests for posting "right wing extremist" content online. This is how they give the whole goddamn bill of rights the hebrew reach around. They will use the mental health system to prevent ownership, but this allows them to use bureaucratic pressure to strongarm anyone who dares to be armed and post wrong think. Fuking Kikes man theres no end to their bullshit.
Yeah, this is some bullshit. I truly fear what the left will do if they ever come into power again after all the bullshit I have seen over the past few years. It would not be surprising if they began to round up right wingers and other "dissidents" immediately upon regaining power.
I'll draw a line between wrongthink and making terroristic threats right about there. Anybody saying that shit should at least get a psych Eval
Samefagging here but this is obviously a poorly timed "le me so edgy" joke
I'm not against the idea. It would need to come with some serious due process to protect people. No set secret panel of 3 anti-gun doctors and a judge or some shit. This is what it would inevitably be though. That or bureaucrats rubber stamping every case.
I agree. This is some retarded post to make. That's what I don't really understand with some of you guys, even when there are obvious red flags you don't want to react.
Yeah, slippery slope arguments are totally unfounded and an obvious sign of Conservative paranoia.
Yuro peons believe in positive rights (you are entitled to certain goods/services and others must provide them to you) but not negative rights (staying the fuck out of other people's business). Truly a land of cuckoldry.
How does a background check stop somebody from stealing a gun out of a police car?
How can you compare legally buying a firearm in a gun shop to stealing a gun in a cop car. One implies a lot of risks, the other not. Jesus.
Statistically speaking actual crazy people commit very little gun crimes other then suicide.
Seriously ill people should have the right to die on their own terms.
Your 9th amendment guarantees that.
That's bureacracy at work the FBI literally had all the info sitting in their lap and did nothing to prevent this shit. I'm calling Incompetence along with a political agenda from "mainstream" holdover agents
because mental illness is not guaranteed to show up on a background check. medical records are confidential in the USA, dipshit frog. and what is mental illness? should depression preclude me from owning a gun? what about bipolarism? schizophrenia?
see the slippery slope that leads to? go ask your stupid questions elsewhere.
That's right and that's the reason I don't understand why people like are against the idea of questioning/evaluating someone that is making such threats on the internet just because they think it could also impact other gun owners.
What they don't seem to realise is that ignoring those retarded threats is what is really threatening their gun rights because those shootings that could have been prevented give the idea to liberals to ban semi automatic rifles.