Gun control

What's a high power gun?

CXP4?

The guns that I’m referring to are assault rifles and other similar guns

No legally-owned assault rifle has ever been used in a crime in the US.

How about requiring that people that want to limit the civil liberties of others undergo intelligence testing before making any kind of decision that would violate the US Constitution.

How would that work and what would it accomplish? It doesn't matter if an individual is an imbecile or a genius — an individual, unless he's a jurist, can't make a decision which "violates" the US Constitution. Say I decide that I no longer accept the notion that an individual can't be forced to incriminate himself, which contradicts the 5th Amendment. What is actually "violated" in this case? It merely sounds as if I have an opinion which would be unconstitutional if actually carried out by prosecutors. On the other hand, courts have ruled that the right to bear arms isn't unlimited so there's no reason to compare Chacha66's reasonable proposal with something as ineffectual as the counter-example you set up. You might want to think this through and maybe you can come up with an argument that makes sense. This one doesn't.

Since existing rules have clearly been sufficient to prevent legally-owned assault rifles from ever being used in any crimes in the history of the US, I question the need for adding a layer of psychological testing to the mix.

Oh that doesn't matter to some people here. Someone arbitrarily decided that an assault rifle is whatever they damn well say it is. And that is where the followers of such nonsense launch their arguments from.

What I mean is that most mentally ill people aren’t allowed to purchase a gun . All I’m saying is that if those people that have shot up crowds of people had psychological testing done, maybe it could have been prevented.

I mean psychological testing for mental illness.

If someone has a mental illness that is actually dangerous (like if they believe that the Pope is sending them secret coded messages telling them to kill the mailman), then it is reasonable to prevent them from having guns.

If someone is merely claustrophobic or afraid of heights, that should not be justification for depriving them of guns.

isn’t gun control an issue? I did not want to make anyone angry.

I'm not angry. I'm OK with restrictions on people who have a dangerous mental illness.

But people should not be barred from having guns just because they have an eating disorder.

It is. Your post was entirely relevant.

You didn't make anyone angry. Most of the pro-gun crowd are already angry — which is why their guns should be confiscated. That's why they're afraid of mental screening tests — they know they're likely to fail! "Sorry, Mr. Gunbunny, but your test results reveal an underlying rage combined with paranoid tendencies and a martyr complex. No gun for you!"

We're not the ones who lash out with bitter posts filled with childish name-calling.

I'm not accusing every single gun control advocate of such behavior. But the majority of the anger is clearly coming from the gun control side of the aisle.



Funny, I thought I was OK with such tests so long as people are only prevented from having a gun if they are actually dangerous.



That would not pass Constitutional muster. Leftist bigotry and stereotypes are not justification for depriving someone of their rights.

I would think that the anti-gun nuts would be the ones who would be apprehensive when it comes to mental screening. After all, they're the ones whose paranoia prevents them from seeing the difference between style and function. "Sorry, Mr. Schizophraidykat, but your test results indicate that your ability to recognize the difference between automatic fire and semiautomatic fire has been severely compromised. Therefore, your opinions on the subject are no longer valid. No new gun laws for you!"