H.R.45 - Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009

While I agree with a lot of the Dem social agenda, I am going to go ahead and disagree with this one. I mean, I don't believe EVERYONE should be allowed to have a gun (including people with SEVERE mental disturbances, and card-carrying members of some extremest organizations-KKK, NOI, and so on). I understand what the bill is aiming at (Virg Tech Massacre-the guy was severely mentally disturbed-but since he was COURT-ORDERED to seek counseling, that was a matter of public record and should have popped up somewhere when he went to get guns). Now, here's the bit of controversy: should the fact that some people are considered a danger to themselves and others have their privacy violated by making the fact that they sought/were made to seek counseling? When it comes to getting weapons: yes. But rather than making everyone go get a health screening is ridiculous and it puts undue burden on health workers. I mean, who is going to pay for it? They are certainly not going to make YOU the gun purchaser to get screened, but since it's a government program, all of us tax payers would have to. Here's an alternative, how about requiring mental health professionals "flag" certain people so that when they go apply for a gun permit or go purchase one, they flag would be available to the establishment issuing the permit. That doesn't cost much to get the system in place, since just about everyone is online. Not necessarily ban the person for life from gun ownership, but at least allow him or her to seek further counseling or whatever to clear the flag. I mean a system like this already exists when you write bad checks, so when you write a bad check somewhere, nobody will honor your checks until the bank removes the flag; so why shouldn't this be available for gun purchases?
It does kill me that if I spend X amount of time in a mental institution for being a danger to myself or others, get discharged and try to go get a handgun permit and I can't pass the background check. However, I can go to Wal-Mart and get myself a brand new shotgun no questions asked! Then use such shotgun to blast some people away before the cops or I take myself out. In that sense, I do believe there should be a bit more control. However, what he is proposing is a bit excessive. Oh, and about Mr. Rush being a member of the SNCC (or "snick"), that was a well-documented extremist organization. For it labeling itself as "non-violent," plenty of their demonstration went a bit too far. Its founder, Stokely Carmichael, was a hate-spewing black power kill the white man type of agitator, from which the Black Panther Party was born. That was my ten cents-my two cents is free.

I don’t really think it matters. I don’t think that flagging people with mental health problems would make much difference either. You can’t stop violence by adding layers of abstraction when it comes to purchasing weapons. Remember not that long ago we had that Muslim dude go to a North Carolina college and start running over people with a Jeep Cherokee.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11660817/

This is why I believe that it makes no difference. Crazy people who wish to do things like this are not going to stop when they can’t buy a gun. They will just find a way… In London where they made firearms illegal; knife crimes went up!

Well, I guess I better hurry up and buy myself an M4 with all the attachments with it. Here's a bit of irony and I will use myself as an example. I was in the Marine Corps for 9 years, 4 months, and 12 days (no, I wasn't counting-I can say that with absolute certainty because it is documented at the bottom of my DD214-the DoD form 214, or Cerificate of Release from Active Duty). Now in my time in service, I have been to lots of sh!tholes that needed American intervention with the occasional killing of an extremist or a few. My combat deployments include Haiti, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Iraq. There were peacekeeping missions and humanitarian missions in which you see human misery to levels that cannot be accurately described here. Such places include Somalia, Pakistan, Albania, Macedonia, Turkey, and even New Orleans right here in the U.S. of A. Sometime after I returned to a peaceful assignment, I started having nightmares and difficult sleeping, along with not sleeping came depression, irritability and anxiety. I was diagnosed with PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). I was treated, but since I had to put a check in the box of the security clearance that said "Have You Ever Received Treatment for Mental Health," my career in the Marine Corps was essentally over because I was "going nuts" and as such, did not deserve a security clearance required to do my job.
The irony in this is that since I have been treated for a mental health issue, I cannot get cleared to get a handgun permit, even though I carried one with the words US stamped on it for almost 10 years. So in a way, the 2nd ammendment does not really apply to me, or it does in a limited manner. Personally, I think it's a bunch of crap, but the powers that be decided so and I would more than happily give back my 14 medals and ribbons and countless other awards just so I can be like everyone else. Now I was never a danger to myself or others, but the system and the establishment haven't quite come around to updating itself. I mean the U.S. Army is still structured around a big show-down with the Soviets and only recently started going back to teaching their soldiers guerrilla warfare tactics. And the only reason the Marine Corps has been doing it is because they haven't quite evolved from Vietnam (it's true).
Now, my point is this: you shouldn't be grouped with everyone else in the mental health category just because you put a check in the box and don't get an opportunity to clear the flag or to see if circumstances warrant a second look. Oh, and you are right, without guns, people will find ways to kill each other. Guns are "illegal" in Japan, yet the yakuza walks freely about with them.

I agree with what you are saying. The problem with the gun issue is that it doesn't now, nor did it ever have anything to do with safety. It has only to do with making people dependent on government. When you can't protect yourself, you will allow for other people to have more control to do so (hopefully). The problem is that you give up some of your rights when you do so. Not to mention to the extreme end, you can't defend yourself in the event that there were some sort of invasion.

I believe it can be summed up by the T-shirt that says, "Criminals are for Gun Control, they don't want to get hurt on the job".